VERONICA POKU (SUING PER HER LAWFUL ATTORNEYTHERESA PEPRAH) vs. MARY LARTEY [2015]DLCA8031

Date	2015-02-05
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL: SUIT NO: H1/126/2014
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8031

KUSI-APPIAH (PRESIDING)

ADUAMA OSEI J.A.

WELBOURNE (MRS.) J.A.

HON. AYIKOI OTOO FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

SHAHADU MOHAMMED FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2015]DLCA8031
																																						<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" >VERONICA POKU (SUING PER HER
LAWFUL ATTORNEYTHERESA PEPRAH)<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/
RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>MARY LARTEY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/ APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL APPEAL: SUIT NO: H1/126/2014&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;DATE: 5TH FEBRUARY, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>HON. AYIKOI OTOO FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SHAHADU MOHAMMED FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

KUSI-APPIAH
(PRESIDING), ADUAMA OSEI J.A., WELBOURNE (MRS.) J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>KUSI-APPIAH,
J.A:<o:p></o:p>The simple issue in this appeal is the factual one of
determining whether the plaintiff (now respondent) or her son Richard Peprah
(now deceased) is the rightful owner of the disputed land.<o:p></o:p>In my view that issue was elaborately pleaded and
adequately canvassed at the trial to obviate any blurring of it.&nbsp; I turn first to the pleadings.&nbsp; In paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the statement
of claim, the plaintiff alleged that by virtue of an agreement concluded
between her as purchaser and one DORIS LOLONYO HOTSE as the vendor evidenced by
an indenture dated 20th day of June, 2000, she purchased the
disputed property in this case and put her son Richard Peprah in occupation of
same and left for the United States of America.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff avers that Richard Peprah having passed
away, defendant (now appellant) is currently in occupation of the disputed
property without her consent for which reason the plaintiff demanded in vain
that defendant immediately quit the disputed property and give vacant possession
of same to her.&nbsp; However, the defendant
has not only persistently defied plaintiff’s demand for vacant possession but
also denied plaintiff’s title to the property, the subject matter of dispute in
this case.<o:p></o:p>For her part, the defendant in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,
9, 10 and 11 of the defence, countered that the disputed property was acquired
by plaintiff’s son Richard Peprah out of monies he earned as compensation in
damages for negligence in a motor accident case in 1994.&nbsp; Although defendant concedes that the document
to the disputed property was prepared in plaintiff’s name, it is the case of
the defendant that plaintiff’s son, Richard Peprah, not merely exercised overt
acts of ownership over the subject property until he married defendant’s
sister, Mrs. Iris Cecilia Peprah, but that Richard Peprah actually co-habited
with defendant’s sister, Mrs. Iris Cecilia Peprah in the disputed property,
rented same to Mrs. Janet Otchere and subsequently granted defendant their
leave and license to stay in the disputed property as a caretaker to avoid same
standing empty.&nbsp; According to the
defendant, she therefore went into occupation of the disputed property with her
husband as caretaker and has remained in possession of same since 2002.<o:p></o:p>The defendant avers that subsequent to his marriage to
her sister (Mrs. Iris Cecilia Peprah), the plaintiff’s son, Richard Peprah,
requested Madam Efe Ampoma Mensah to change the document to the disputed
property from plaintiff’s name into his name.&nbsp;
Defendant further maintains that Richard Peprah sent the said Madam Efe
Ampoma Mensah US$500 through defendant to effect the change but that the
document was not changed before Richard Peprah’s demise on the 14th
December, 2003.<o:p></o:p>The defendant contends that plaintiff’s son, Richard
Peprah, died testate and that in his Will, he devised the disputed property to
appellant’s sister, Mrs. Iris Cecilia Peprah.<o:p></o:p>The first two issues set down for trial were formulated
as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-22.5pt;line-height:150%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether
or not the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the disputed land?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-22.5pt;line-height:150%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">