MRS VIVIAN AKU-BROWN DANQUAH vs. SAMUEL LANQUAYE ODARTEY [2016]DLSC2833

Date	2016-06-29
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/4/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLSC2833

ANSAH JSC [PRESIDING]

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

BAFFOE - BONNIE JSC

BENIN JSC

PWAMANG JSC.

KENNETH KUDZORDZIE ESQ. FOR THE APPELLANT.

PROSPER NYAHE ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2016]DLSC2833
																																						<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" >MRS VIVIAN AKU-BROWN
DANQUAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SAMUEL LANQUAYE ODARTEY<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, 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 NO. J4/4/2016&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 29TH JUNE, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KENNETH
KUDZORDZIE ESQ. FOR THE 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">

&nbsp;PROSPER NYAHE ESQ.&nbsp; FOR THE 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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
Calibri;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">ANSAH
JSC [PRESIDING], ANIN YEBOAH JSC, BAFFOE - BONNIE JSC, BENIN JSC, AND PWAMANG
JSC.<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGEMENT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>

</div>PWAMANG,
JSC.<o:p></o:p>This case was commenced in
May, 2006 in the High Court, Accra whereby the two parties claimed ownership of
land near Abokobi in the names of their respective families. The parties
pleaded two contrasting stories of how each of them &nbsp;acquired the land. The case of
plaintiff/appellant/respondent, hereafter referred to as “plaintiff”, is that
the land, containing approximately 569 acres, was acquired through settlement in
1854 by her ancestor called Ayi Blaflatsi who established a village on the land
which was named “Krobiwoho”. She said her family, the Adutso Family of Osu,
exercised rights of ownership over the land from that time to the time of the
litigation. Defendant/respondent/appellant, to be referred to as “defendant”,
on his part said his family land, which is about 593 acres, was first settled
upon by his ancestor called Nii Odartey Sro over 200 years ago and that he
established a village on the land and named it Adanse. He too said his family exercised
rights of ownership on the land for over 200 years. <o:p></o:p>After a full trial, the
High Court, in a terse two paragraph judgment dated 4 December, 2010, held that
the plaintiff failed to lead evidence to positively identify the land she
claimed and that her star witness was not credible. The court therefore
dismissed the case of the plaintiff and granted the counterclaim of the defendant.
The judge promised to give full reason for his decision but he never did.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff appealed
against the judgment to the Court of Appeal. Whilst criticising the trial judge
for failing to give full reasons in which he would have stated his findings on
the primary facts in dispute in the case, the court determined the appeal on
the evidence on record and the submissions of the parties since an appeal is a
rehearing. In its judgment the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, entered
judgment for the plaintiff and dismissed the counterclaim of the defendant.<o:p></o:p>Being dissatisfied with
the decision of the Court of Appeal, defendant has appealed to this court as
the final appellate court on the following grounds;<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The court of Appeal erred when it considered the evidence of
Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent star witness PW2 as reliable contrary to the
specific finding of the trial judge that PW2 is unreliable.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the
Defendant/Respondent plea of statute of limitation and awarded judgment in
favour of Plaintiff/Appellant thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.<o:p></o:p>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Court of Appeal erred when it gave judgment to
Plaintiff/Appellant contrary to the evidence on record.<o:p></o:p>d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Court of Appeal erred when confronted with competing
traditional evidence, it ignored the recent acts of ownership exercised by
Defendant/Respondent and awarded judgment in favour of Plaintiff/Appellant.<o:p></o:p>e.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Court of Appeal erred when it ascribed meaning to answer
given by PW2 under cross-examination in the absence of any ambiguity on the
record thereby adorning PW2’s evidence with cloak of credibility.<o:p></o:p>f.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Court of Appeal’s interference with the findings of
fact by the trial judge is unjustified in law.<o:p></o:p>g.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Court of Appeal erred when it ignored the onus on the
Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent to establish the identity of land she claimed in
a declaration of title and concluded that the issue of identity is one of
agreed fact.<o:p></o:p>