REV. ARHIN DAVIES vs. JOHN KWAME KUMAH [2014]DLCA5082

Date	2014-06-16
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO: H1/24/13
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA5082

C. J. HONYENUGA J.A (PRESIDING)

D. ADJEI J.A

B. F. ACKAH-YENSU J.A

I.G CARSON FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

KODJE KUM FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT ABSENT

[2014]DLCA5082
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >REV. ARHIN DAVIES<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JOHN KWAME KUMAH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL
APPEAL SUIT NO: H1/24/13&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;16TH JUNE, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>I.G CARSON FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">KODJE KUM FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT ABSENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p>C. J. HONYENUGA J.A (PRESIDING), D. ADJEI J.A, B.
F. ACKAH-YENSU J.A<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:
0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU, JA<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal against
the judgment delivered on 27th February, 2012 by the High Court
sitting at Sekondi. By the said judgment, the Court dismissed the case of the
Plaintiff/Appellant (to be referred to simply as “the Appellant” hereinafter)
and decreed judgment in favour of the Defendant/Respondent (also to be referred
to as “the Respondent’ hereinafter).<o:p></o:p>The gist of this case is
that the Appellant issued a writ of summons against the Respondent in the High
Court for; a declaration that the land in dispute belonged to his paternal
family; recovery of possession; perpetual injunction against the Respondent;
and general damages. The basis of the Appellant’s case was that he was the
grandson of L.T.C Davies who on 10th December 1912 was adjudged the
owner of a larger area of which the current land in dispute forms part, in the
case L.T.C Davies vrs. Norweh. One
Ebusuapanyin Yaa Kwesi unsuccessfully tried to claim the larger land from the
Appellant in the case Ebusuapanyin Yaa
Kwesi vrs Arhin Davies in Suit
No.25/92. The appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court by Yaa
Kwesi were all unsuccessful.<o:p></o:p>It was Appellant’s further
case that on the demise intestate of L.T.C Davies, the land devolved to his
children as decided in the case of Davies
vrs. Randal [1963] 1 GLR 382 at 383 holding 3. L.T.F. Sagoe, an adopted son
succeeded L.T.C. Davies and he was succeeded by S.L.S. Davies. The property has
since devolved onto the Appellant and his siblings; sons of S.L.S. Davies. The
property in Appellant’s claim has been plotted under the West Anagyi Planning
Scheme and earmarked as a hotel. It is also the Appellant’s case that
notwithstanding the decision of the various courts in the Appellant’s favour,
Ebusuapanyin Yaa Kwesi has alienated the land reserved for a hotel to the
Respondent.<o:p></o:p>In his defence, John Kwame
Kumah contended that the land in dispute did not belong to the Appellant nor
did he derive title through its owners. The Respondent contended further that
he was a lessee of the parcel for the land designated as site for a hotel
situate at Sector ‘B’, West Anaji Planning Scheme registered as No.2514/2000
which he acquired from the rightful grantors and has been in undisturbed
possession since 1993.<o:p></o:p>Also, that the action was
statue barred and that it was only in April, 2007 that the Appellant’s Lawyers
wrote to question Respondent’s acts on the land. Respondent’s Lawyers replied
to this letter challenging Appellant’s claim of title to the land. Respondent
therefore denied Appellant’s claim and also counterclaimed for declaration of
title to the disputed land, and perpetual injunction against the Appellant.<o:p></o:p>The judgment of the trial
court (page 172 of the ROA) was in the following terms:<o:p></o:p>“The Plaintiff admits not challenging
the Defendant in possession until after twelve years. The Plaintiff has also
not demonstrated any overt acts of possession by the Plaintiff to contradict
Defendants claim of possession which is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s title.<o:p></o:p>It is therefore my finding that twelve
years of adverse possession by the Defendant have expired and that the true
owner, being the Plaintiff, losses his right to bring action to recover the
land and therefore his title to the land is extinguished.<o:p></o:p>In view of the foregoing findings of
this court, the Defendant’s counterclaim is accordingly unsuccessful and
therefore dismissed. I find for the Defendant by virtue of his adverse possession”.<o:p></o:p>Being dissatisfied with
the said judgment, the Appellant appeals per his Notice of Appeal on the
following grounds:<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That the said decision is against the
weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>