ALEX KOJO AHIAVE vs. KWAME SASU [2016]DLCA4478

Date	2016-04-14
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO: H1/10/15
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4478

GYAESAYOR JA (PRESIDING)

ACQUAYE JA

DZAMEFE JA

NAA O. NORTEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

JEAN MAURELLET FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2016]DLCA4478
																																						<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" >ALEX KOJO AHIAVE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KWAME SASU<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO: H1/10/15&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: 14TH APRIL, 2016<o:p></o:p>

JEAN
MAURELLET FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
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>GYAESAYOR, JA<o:p></o:p>The
defendant/appellant in this appeal is seeking to reverse the judgment of the
High Court dated 25th day of April 2012.&nbsp;
That judgment granted ownership of the disputed land to the
plaintiff/respondent.&nbsp; The
defendant/appellant on 2nd May 2012 filed the notice of appeal to challenge the
decision of the High Court.&nbsp; Before I
deal with the grounds of appeal I intend to give a brief history of the case
which culminated in this appeal.<o:p></o:p>It
is the case of the plaintiff/respondent that he became the owner of the
disputed land at Tantra hills as a result of a gift to him by one Madam Mary
Prempeh sometime in 1980.&nbsp; By his
statement of claim, he averred that his grantor also got the land as a gift
from Dr. Charles Elias Reindorf, the then head and lawful representative of the
Onamrokor Adain family.&nbsp; The plaintiff
claimed to have erected corner pillars and dug foundation for the construction
work on the land.<o:p></o:p>In
recent times according to the plaintiff, the defendant who claimed to have
acquired title to the same piece of land from the Onamrokor family, had
constructed a fence wall and attempting to build a residential facility.
Subsequently, the statement of claim was amended with leave of the court and
this was filed on 20th June 2011.<o:p></o:p>The
amended statement of defence was filed on 23rd April 2011. The defendant denied
every material allegation by the plaintiff and said the land is a subject of a
lease between him and Nii Quarshie Solomon acting head and lawful
representative of the Onamrokor Adain family of Accra for a period of 99 years.<o:p></o:p>After
acquiring the land, he went into possession by erecting a fence wall around the
perimeter of the land.&nbsp; He then put up a
dwelling house on one of the plots and a structure on the second plot, put in a
caretaker and allowed him to farm on it.&nbsp;
It was bare land when he acquired it.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant further averred that he was on the land from 1988 and it was not
until April 2009 when plaintiff/respondent started laying claim to the
land.&nbsp; The defendant denied receiving any
letter from plaintiff’s lawyer in 2009 because he was at all material times in the
USA.&nbsp; He then proceeded to plead the
limitation decree NRCD 54 of 1972.<o:p></o:p>After
taking evidence, the trial court gave its judgment.&nbsp; I found no evidence on record that a fresh
application for directions was filed and neither do I find evidence that a
reply was filed to the amended statement of defence filed by the appellant. The
notice of appeal can be found at page 146 of the ROA.<o:p></o:p>Grounds
of Appeal<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned trial judge’s finding that
the land being claimed by the plaintiff was in a different location from that
of the defendant was inconsistent with the plaintiffs own admission that the
land subject matter of dispute between the parties was the same.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In view of the uncontroverted evidence
before the court that the land subject matter of dispute was compulsorily
acquired by the government under the State Lands (Olympic Sports Complex)
Instrument 1975 (E.I.61) and therefore state land, the learned trial judge
erred&nbsp; in law in granting the plaintiff
declaration of title to state land.<o:p></o:p>iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Having regard to the fact that the
plaintiff did not dispute that the defendant had been in adverse possession of
the land for over twenty years the learned judge erred in not dismissing the
plaintiff’s claim as statute barred under Section 10 of the Limitations Act
(NRCD 54).<o:p></o:p>iv.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The award of damages to the plaintiff is
not supportable by law and the evidence on record.<o:p></o:p>v.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The judgment is against the weight of
the evidence on record.<o:p></o:p>vi.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Further grounds of appeal to be filed
upon receipt of the record of appeal.<o:p><</main>