YEHANS INTERNATIONAL LTD. vs. MARTEY TSURU FAMILY AND 18TH JULY LIMITED [2017]DLCA4878

Date	2017-03-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/58/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLCA4878

P. K. GYAESAYOR J. A (PRESIDING)

ADUAMA OSEI J.A

AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON J.A

MR. SAMMANE ZACHARY FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

MR. OSAFO BUABENG FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.

[2017]DLCA4878
																																						<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" >YEHANS INTERNATIONAL LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MARTEY TSURU FAMILY AND 18TH JULY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">SUIT
NO. H1/58/2016&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; DATE: 30TH MARCH, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. SAMMANE
ZACHARY FOR THE DEFENDANT/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">

MR.
OSAFO BUABENG FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>P.
K. GYAESAYOR J. A (PRESIDING), ADUAMA OSEI J.A, AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON J.A<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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>AVRIL LOVELACE – JOHNSON (JA)<o:p></o:p>On 29th
July 2014, the High Court gave judgment for the Plaintiff/Respondents in this
matter on their claim for Declaration of title to land described in their statement
of claim, Perpetual injunction, Damages for trespass, and recovery of
possession of the said land. The 1st Defendant/Appellant counterclaimed for the
same reliefs but over a larger tract of land and the disputed land. Likewise
the 2nd Defendant/Appellant counterclaimed for the same reliefs in
respect of a portion of the land claimed by the Plaintiff/Respondent with the
exception of the relief for recovery of possession, since their position from
their statement of defence was that they were already in possession.<o:p></o:p>Being
dissatisfied with the judgment in question the two have launched the present
appeal.<o:p></o:p>Hereon, for ease
of reference, the designations of the parties in the High Court will be
maintained.<o:p></o:p>The grounds of appeal filed by the 1st
Defendant are as follows<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:
inter-ideograph;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9">i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The judgment is against the weight of
evidence<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:
inter-ideograph;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9">ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The learned Trial Judge was wrong when
he held that E.I. 46 and Exhibit “A” related to the land in dispute and gave
Judgment for the Plaintiff/Respondent when the Parties themselves have
unequivocally agreed that the land in dispute is not Government land otherwise
it would not have been zoned by the 1st Defendant/Appellant into a
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:
inter-ideograph;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9">iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Learned Trial Judge was wrong when
he held that the 1st Defendant failed to prove his counterclaim
notwithstanding preponderant and unchallenged evidence that the 1st Defendant
commissioned Town and Country Planning Department to Zone the disputed area as
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA and in control thereof and performed over acts of
possession at the commencement of the Suit.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:
inter-ideograph;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo9">