JANE BRUCE TAGOE vs. NANA BOAKYE, MICHAEL ATTIPOE [2017]DLHC11931

Date	2017-02-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FAL/341/2012
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC11931

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATIENCE-MILLS TETTEH

MAVIS DZANDU HOLDING BRIEF FOR RAYMOND BAGNABU FOR PLAINTIFF

VICTOR KWADJOGA ADAWUDU FOR DEFENDANTS

[2017]DLHC11931
																																						<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" >JANE
BRUCE TAGOE <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p><a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>NANA
BOAKYE, MICHAEL ATTIPOE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. FAL/341/2012&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:9TH&nbsp;FEBRUARY 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&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; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">MAVIS DZANDU HOLDING
BRIEF FOR RAYMOND BAGNABU FOR PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATIENCE-MILLS
TETTEH<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

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

</div>The parties herein are both not the original owners of
the land in dispute but are beneficiaries of these original owners. The
narration of root of title is therefore for both parties stories handed down to
them from these original owners. The evidence of the plaintiff is a traditional
evidence of transfer handed down from her late father to her, whilst the 2nd
defendant also testified of a transfer from a vendor to his late father.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Since both parties have a common grantor there must be
another way to justify the right of claim of one party over the other, either
by dates the transfer was effected or by acts of possession and occupation. The
statement made by Atuguba JSC in the case of IN RE KROBO STOOL (NO.1) NYAMEKYE
v. OPOKU [2000] SCGLR 347 is here applicable; “… the best way of evaluating
traditional evidence is to test the authenticity of the rival versions against
the background of positive and recent acts”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The defendant therefore depended heavily on acts of
possession and occupation in his evidence to prove ownership, but such overt
acts of possession and occupation must be without any resistance from the plaintiff
and that is exactly what the defendant was unable to prove to tilt the scale in
his favour.<o:p></o:p>In the case of IN RE TAAHYEN AND ASSAGO STOOLS: KUMANIM
II v.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;ANNIN [1998-1999] SCGLR 347 Acquah JSC at page 416-417
stated that in assessing rival traditional evidence, ……………… what is important
is to find out which of the rival versions is authenticated by rival acts and
events within living memory, especially where such acts and events are acts of
possession and ownership by a party claiming ownership and title to the subject
matter of the claim.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In the case of ADJEI v. ACQUAH AND ORS [1991] GLR 13 at
page 31 Wiredu JSC as he then was also stated thus “What the authorities
require is that such stories must be weighed along with recent facts as acts of
exercise of rights of ownership to see which of the two rival stories appear
more probable. Facts established by matters and events within living memory,
especially evidence of acts of the exercise of ownership and possession, must
take precedence over mere traditional evidence.’<o:p></o:p>These referred cases did not state that such overt acts
could have been resisted and when resisted with success, those acts could no
more be of any assistance to the court in proof of ownership.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is significant to note therefore that in the case
herein, there has been resistance by the plaintiff in an earlier judgment to
acts of possession and occupation by the defendant. This case has been
adjudicated upon in the earlier case of JANE BRUCE TAGOE v. MICHAEL K.G.
ATTIPOE with suit number 1325/93 and with the judgment in favour of the
plaintiff and in this suit herein the plainti</main>