AKUA NSOWAA, AKOSUA AMPONSAH, KWAKU NSIAH AND KWADWO TIWAA vs. TOAYIRI BAMBA AND HAJIA MAMAA [2017]DLSC2492

AKUA NSOWAA, AKOSUA AMPONSAH, KWAKU NSIAH AND KWADWO TIWAA vs. TOAYIRI BAMBA AND... [2017]DLSC2492

Date	2017-01-26
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: J4/11/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLSC2492

ANIN YEBOAH JSC (PRESIDING)

BAFFOE- BONNIE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO BAMFO (MRS) JSC

PWAMANG JSC

J. AYIKOI OTOO ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.

DOMETI KOFI SOKPOR ESQ. FOR THEPLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2017]DLSC2492
																																						<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" ><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>AKUA NSOWAA, AKOSUA AMPONSAH, KWAKU
NSIAH AND KWADWO TIWAA<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TOAYIRI BAMBA AND HAJIA
MAMAA &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL APPEAL NO:
J4/11/2016&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;DATE: 26TH JANUARY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>J.
AYIKOI OTOO ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

DOMETI
KOFI SOKPOR ESQ. &nbsp;FOR THEPLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>ANIN YEBOAH JSC (PRESIDING),
BAFFOE- BONNIE JSC, GBADEGBE JSC ,&nbsp;
AKOTO&nbsp; BAMFO (MRS) JSC AND PWAMANG
JSC<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="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>ANIN-YEBOAH JSC:<o:p></o:p>The
facts of this case appear not to be seriously controverted and fall within a
very narrow compass. The house in dispute described as H/NO C78 (now B7/2)
Wenchi in the Brong Ahafo Region was originally owned by one Seidu Manje alias
Seidu Banda, alias Asiedu Manje. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff/appellants/appellants who for sake of brevity shall be referred to as
the appellants commenced action at the High Court, Wenchi against the
defendants/respondents/respondents who shall be referred to in this delivery as
the respondents. The first appellant is the niece of one Kofi Amponsah, the
father of the second appellant. The third appellant is the customary successor
of the said Kofi Amponsah. The respondents are the descendants of Seidu Manje
and they claimed he was their grand uncle. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It
was the case of the appellants that Kofi Amponsah in his lifetime bought the
house in dispute from Seidu Manje. This assertion was denied by the respondents
as they contended that Seidu Manje never at any point in time sold the house to
Kofi Amponsah but that Seidu Manje only pledged a portion of the house to Kofi
Amponsah for an amount of ε1. In the trial court, the appellant sought a
declaration of title in respect of the disputed property and the respondents
also counterclaimed for substantially the same reliefs as claimed by the
appellant. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We
have carefully considered the evidence and had regard to the written
submissions submitted by the parties and wish to express our opinion on the
matter in relatively few words. In our view the appellants have not been able
to persuade us that the decision of the leaned justices of the CA was perverse
and or unreasonable such as to justify intervention in respect of the decision
on appeal which turns primarily on issues of fact. <o:p></o:p>However,
we wish to refer to a point of procedural importance which was glossed over by
the two lower courts. At the hearing of the application for directions
subsequent to close of pleadings, the plaintiffs set down nine issues for
determination by the trial High Court. For a better understanding of the
observations we reproduce the issues as follows: <o:p></o:p>