ANGELA OFORI AND AKOSUA BIRAGO vs. NII TETTEY KOJO II AND ASAFOATSE (SNR) [2017]DLCA4562

Date	2017-11-16
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL N0: H1/156/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLCA4562

M. OWUSU (MS) J.A. (PRESIDING)

I. LARBI (MRS) J.A

M. M. AGYEMANG (MRS) JA

MR. ANTWI ABANKWAH FOR PLAINTIFFS / APPELLANTS

MR. A.G BOADU FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS

[2017]DLCA4562
																																						<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" >ANGELA OFORI AND AKOSUA BIRAGO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NII TETTEY KOJO II AND ASAFOATSE (SNR)<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION), 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 N0: H1/156/2017&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:&nbsp; 16TH NOVEMBER 2017<o:p></o:p>

MR.
A.G BOADU FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>AGYEMANG
JA:<o:p></o:p>In this appeal against the
judgment of the High Court Land Division, the plaintiffs/appellants (hereafter
referred to as the appellants), seek a reversal of the judgment of the court
below delivered on the 28th day of July 2016.<o:p></o:p>These are the antecedents
of the present appeal.<o:p></o:p>The appellants are
Ghanaians resident in the United Kingdom who entered into a transaction for the
purchase of land situate at Ayawaso in the Greater Accra Region, designated to
be two plots of land and described in the schedule to the Statement of Claim
as: “bounded on the northeast by a proposed road measuring 141.2 feet more or
less, on the southwest by lessor’s land measuring 140.3 feet more or less, on
the southeast by lessor’s land measuring 101.4 feet more or less on the northwest
by lessor’s land measuring 100.5 feet more or less and containing an
approximate area of 0.13 hectares or 0.336 acres more or less…”<o:p></o:p>The transaction was
between the two appellants and one Samuel Kofi Adom. The latter had allegedly
been sold the said two plots of land by one Adekpo, with the authority of the
Ayawaso Stool. The respondents, as representatives of the Ayawaso Stool
confirmed the transaction by signing an indenture dated the 20th May 2004
conveying the land described in the site-plan attached thereto, to Samuel Kofi
Adom.<o:p></o:p>Samuel Kofi Adom then
entered into a transaction with the appellants, to sell his interest in the
land to the appellants, and purported to transfer same, not by conveying same
to the appellants, but by simply erasing his name and substituting the names of
the appellants for his own on the indenture dated 20th May 2004 by which the
land had been conveyed to him by the respondents.<o:p></o:p>The appellants went into
possession of one half of the land described in the indenture per their agent
Eric Nyarko. This agent (who was also described as the son of the first
plaintiff), put up a structure up to lintel level on one plot and suspended
work thereat due to lack of funds. When after a while, here turned to continue
with the building project, he found someone else on the other plot of land. He
therefore went to the respondents who were described as the lessors in the
indenture, to inform them of the matter. An investigation conducted by the
respondents revealed that the indenture by which the appellants made their
claim was doctored, that the lessee’s name had been erased and in its place the
appellants’ had been inserted. Furthermore, the area covered by the said
indenture included land that the respondents had sold to the fourth defendant
herein. <o:p></o:p>Samuel Kofi Adom, at the
invitation of the respondents, appeared before them and admitted that he had
tampered with the indenture the respondents had given him with the intent of
transferring the interest he had acquired to the appellants. For this act which
was considered abominable, and for the respondents to issue a new indenture,
the said gentleman was asked to provide the following items which would be used
to pacify the deities of the area: GHC1,000, a live sheep, a bottle of whisky,
and an undisclosed number of bottles of schnapps. The sum of GHC1000 which was
reduced to GHC600 was later retained when the appellants allegedly asked for
the preparation of two indentures instead of one, dividing the original land
demised into two, to be held by the plaintiffs. GHC500 was also paid by the
appellants to the surveyor who was to draw up the site plan for the indenture. <o:p></o:p>It was the appellant’s
complaint that having provided all that was asked, and therefore having
purportedly stepped into the shoes of the original grantee Samuel Kofi Adom,
the respondent failed to prepare two indentures for them covering the land
demised to the original grantee, but rather prepared one indenture, by which
only one plot (half of what they had sold to Samuel Kofi Adom), was demised to
them.<o:p></o:p>Having joined issue with
the appellants, the respondents each gave a differing account of the
transaction. At the close of the evidence, the learned trial judge dismissed
the suit and entered judgment for the respondents herein.<o:p></o:p>It is against the said
judgment that the instant appeal has been brought.<o:p></o:p>The appellants set out
five grounds which we reproduce at length:<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The judgment is against the weight of
the evidence;<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Since the facts found in the case lead
irresistibly to the conclusion that the plaintiffs came to stand in the shoes
of one Samuel Kofi Adom the lessee of the defendants whom the defendants had
granted the piece of land measuring 0.326 acre the judge was wrong in
confirming the defendant’s decision giving plaintiffs land less than S.K.
Adom’s land;<o:p></o:p>iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp</main>