ABED NORTEY vs. AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISM & COMMUNICATION AND 2 ORS [2014]DLSC6124

Date	2014-02-26
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/47/2013
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC6124

WOOD (MRS.) CJ (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

YEBOAH JSC

BONNIE JSC

AKAMBA JSC

YAW OPOKU ADJAYE WITH HIM TETTEH JOSIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT.

ROCKSON NELSON DAFEAMEKPOR FOR THE 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS/ APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS.

[2014]DLSC6124
																																						<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" >ABED NORTEY<o:p></o:p>{PLAINTIFF/
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT}<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISM &amp; COMMUNICATION AND 2 ORS<o:p></o:p>{PLAINTIFF/
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT}<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA-GHANA]<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 NO. J4/47/2013&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;DATE: 26TH FEBRUARY, 2014<o:p></o:p>

APPELLANTS/
RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="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>AKAMBA
JSC<o:p></o:p>On 14th June 2012, the
Court of Appeal by a unanimous decision overturned the judgment of the High Court
Accra which had granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiff/respondent/appellant
who shall hereinafter be referred to simply as the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this
outcome, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal to this court.<o:p></o:p>BRIEF
FACTS<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff commenced
the action by writ initially against the 1st defendant/ appellant/ respondent (hereinafter
simply referred as 1st respondent). The 2nd and 3rd respondents were later
joined to the suit. The crux of the plaintiff’s claim was for a declaration of
title to lands described as Oshiokpo lands covering an approximate area of
777.696 acres as land belonging to the Osuwem Family of Prampram which family
plaintiff represents. The respondents denied the plaintiffs claims and by their
amended statement of defence and counterclaim sought a declaration of title to
the land known as Nii Nartey<o:p></o:p>Borboryo family lands at
Oshiokpo at Dahwenya measuring approximately 1,561.932 acres or 632.114 hectares
more or less.<o:p></o:p>The dispute at the trial
high court was litigated between the plaintiff and the 2nd and 3rd respondents with
the 1st respondent as a nominal defendant. Also at the trial, the 1st
respondent institute did not give evidence but merely relied on the 2nd and 3rd
respondents being the grantors of the disputed land to the institute. The trial
court at the close of hearing entered judgment for the plaintiff on his claims
as afore mentioned<o:p></o:p>On appeal by the 2nd and
3rd respondents, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the High Court which
it set aside and upheld the counterclaim by the respondents in its entirety. As
a result, judgment was entered for the 2nd and 3rd respondents.<o:p></o:p>GROUNDS
OF APPEAL<o:p></o:p>In this court, the
plaintiff has filed the following grounds of appeal against the decision of the
court of appeal, namely:<o:p></o:p>(i)
The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to consider
adequately or at all the case of the plaintiff/respondent/appellant.<o:p></o:p>(ii)
The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the
plaintiff had relied on exhibit B and B1 as the root of his family’s title to
land.<o:p></o:p>(iii)
The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that
exhibit A had no probative value.<o:p></o:p>(iv)
&nbsp;The learned justices of the Court of
Appeal erred in law in holding that the trial judge did not evaluate exhibits
4, 5, 6 and 11.<o:p></o:p>(v)
The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the
2nd and 3rd defendants had proved their counterclaim.<o:p></o:p>(vi)
The judgment is against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>ANALYSIS
OF GROUNDS<o:p></o:p>Grounds
(i), (ii), (iii) and (vi).<o:p></o:p>The appellants have spelt
out specific instances or complaints of dissatisfaction with findings of fact
and the law allegedly made by the Court of Appeal in the grounds (i) to (v) (supra).
They have also included a general or omnibus ground (vi) which in the
circumstance appears superfluous. This may well be within the appellant’s
options in his desire to leave no stone unturned to articulate forcefully his displeasure
about the appellate court’s decision which went against him. Be that as it may,
we would consider grounds (i) to (iii) and (vi) together since they bear on the
common accusation of failure to evaluate the facts and law in relation [sic]the
plaintiff’s case adequately.<o:p></o:p>In his arguments in
support of these grounds the plaintiff urged that the court of appeal did not
deal fairly and imparti</main>