NANA BRAFO DADAZIE II vs. JOHN KING ARTHUR, ABEIKU ARTHUR, GEORGE ARTHUR, ATTA OCRAN, MAD.ADWOA ACKON, KWESI ESSOUN, PAPA YAW, MR. JOSEPH AIDOO, SAMUEL KRAH ALIAS KWEKU ANNAN, ALBERT KOJO, DADZIE-FYNN, EGYA KWANDADOR JNR, OPANYIN KWEI, ATOAMU KWAW ANDEGYA ACKON (DRIVER) [2017]DLSC2508

NANA BRAFO DADAZIE II vs. JOHN KING ARTHUR, ABEIKU ARTHUR, GEORGE ARTHUR, ATTA O... [2017]DLSC2508

Date	2017-01-26
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: J4/20/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLSC2508

ANIN YEBOAH JSC (PRESIDING)

BAFFOE- BONNIE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

APPAU JSC

PWAMANG JSC

E. K. AMUA -SEKYI ESQ. WITH HIM GRACE LINDA NYARKO FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.

SAMUEL DZIBA ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2017]DLSC2508
																																						<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" >NANA BRAFO DADAZIE II<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JOHN KING ARTHUR, ABEIKU
ARTHUR, GEORGE ARTHUR, ATTA OCRAN, MAD.ADWOA ACKON, KWESI ESSOUN, PAPA YAW, MR.
JOSEPH AIDOO, SAMUEL KRAH ALIAS KWEKU ANNAN, ALBERT KOJO, DADZIE-FYNN, EGYA
KWANDADOR JNR, OPANYIN KWEI, ATOAMU KWAW ANDEGYA ACKON (DRIVER)<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:
J4/20/2016&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; DATE:
26TH JANUARY,
2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>E.
K. AMUA -SEKYI ESQ. WITH HIM GRACE LINDA NYARKO FOR THE
DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.<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">

SAMUEL
DZIBA ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>ANIN YEBOAH, JSC (PRESIDING) BAFFOE-
BONNIE, JSC GBADEGBE ,JSC APPAU ,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 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<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:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>YAW APPAU, JSC.<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated the 10th
day of December, 2014. The Appellants, who are fourteen (14) in number, were
the Defendants in the trial High Court. They were sued by the Respondent who
was the Plaintiff and Chief of Upper Shama Junction. His claim against all the
Defendants/Appellants was for two reliefs only, i.e.: <o:p></o:p><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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(i)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
General
Damages for trespass to portions of the Upper Shama Junction lands bounded on
all sides by the lands of Ituma, Kwasi Ansah of Agona family of Kumase-Shama,
Bonsaba lands and Konfueku lands; <o:p></o:p><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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(ii)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Recovery
of possession of lands unlawfully occupied by the defendants. <o:p></o:p>The
Defendants/Appellants lost in the trial High Court and lost the second time in
the Court of Appeal when they appealed against the judgment of the trial High Court.
This is therefore their second appeal. They would simply be referred to as
Appellants in this appeal whilst the Plaintiff/Respondent would maintain the
description ‘Respondent’ hereinafter. <o:p></o:p>This
Court has a plethora of authorities or decisions on what is expected of it as a
final appellate court when it is confronted with a second appeal challenging
the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal. With reference to
its previous decision in ACHORO v
AKANFELA [1996-97] SCGLR 209, this Court in KOGLEX LTD (No. 2) v FIELD [2000] SCGLR 175, held under its holding
(2) at page 176 that: “Where the first appellate court had
confirmed the findings of the trial court, the second appellate court would not
interfere with the concurrent findings unless it was established with absolute
clearness that some blunder or error, resulting in a miscarriage of justice,
was apparent in the way in which the lower court had dealt with the facts”. <o:p></o:p>The
Court, per Acquah, JSC (as he then was), gave four (4) instances where such
concurrent findings may be interfered with; reference page 177 of the Koglex Ltd (No.2) case cited (supra). These are: <o:p></o:p><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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">i.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
where the findings of the
trial court are clearly unsupported by evidence on record or where the reasons
in support of the findings are unsatisfactory; <o:p></o:p><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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">ii.