EMMANUEL ABLADE GLOVER vs. DEE AND 3 OTHERS [2018]DLCA4705

Date	2018-05-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO.H1/216/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA4705

SAMUEL MARFUL SAU (J.A) PRESIDING

AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON (J.A)

HENRY A. KWOFIE (J.A)

MR. R. O. SOLOMON FOR THE APPELLANT

MR. NATHANIEL MYERS FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[2018]DLCA4705
																																						<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" >EMMANUEL ABLADE GLOVER<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DEE AND 3 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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">

SUIT NO.H1/216/2018&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: 24TH MAY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. R. O. SOLOMON FOR THE
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.
NATHANIEL MYERS FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<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
MARFUL SAU (J.A) PRESIDING, AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON (J.A), HENRY A. KWOFIE (J.A)<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</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" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AVRIL
LOVELACE-JOHNSON JA:<o:p></o:p>The present appeal has
been launched by the Plaintiff/Appellant against the judgment of the circuit
court delivered on 30th January 2013 on the following grounds<o:p></o:p>1.
The plaintiff’s claim having been founded on his Land Title Certificate (No. GA
3406) the learned trial judge failed to appreciate the force and effect of
sections 18 (1) and 43 (1) of the Land Title Registration Law 1986, PNDCL 152
and hence misdirected himself on the applicable law.<o:p></o:p>2.
Considering the admission by the Defendants that the land in dispute was
originally owned by the Asere stool the learned trial judge erred in his
finding that the co- defendant’s grantor E.C. Otoo was the owner at the time of
his grant to Benjamin Komla Debrah in view of the evidence that E.C. Otoo
acquired his land from a person other than the Asere Mantse as against the
plaintiff who obtained his grant from the Asere Mantse.<o:p></o:p>3.
The leaned trial judge failed to appreciate that E.C. Otoo having concurred in
the grant of the land to the plaintiff by the Asere Mantse he E.C. Otoo had
abandoned any claim he had to the land and/or alternatively, that he had
acknowledged the title of the Asere stool and its right to grant the land to
the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>4.
The learned trial judge failed to appreciate that Benjamin Komla Debrah’s
document registered with Land Registry No. 27/1976 did not grant him title to
the land and especially so when the evidence showed that his document had been
deleted from the records of the Land Commission. The Learned trial judge
consequently erred in relying on Debrah’s document as a basis of his title.<o:p></o:p>On the basis of these
grounds, he seeks from this Court, an order setting aside the judgment on
appeal and in its place asks that judgment be entered in his favour.<o:p></o:p>First, there is a need to
make two preliminary comments. The practice has been for the courts to record
cross examination in a question and answer format and to take the evidence in
chief in free narrative style. This long established practice was not followed
by the trial court and thus made the proceedings “clumsy and disjointed and impedes a fluent perusal of the evidence so
led”. These were the words of the Supreme Court in the case of In re
Agbenu(decd); Agbenu v Agbenu 2009 SCGLR 636 @641 when ordering a trial de novo
partly for the reason that there was confusion in the recording of proceedings.
That case was heard by the same trial judge who heard the present case on
appeal. Lower courts are advised to maintain the established practice of
recording proceedings. <o:p></o:p>The second comment is
about the written submissions of counsel for the Respondents. They were not
coherent to put it mildly and so did not help much with the determination of
this appeal. There were sentences which did not make sense like<o:p></o:p>‘….and
where by way of gift or other consideration when accepted by a proper
transaction by court purchased of contempt judication takes precedence over all
other grants’ <o:p></o:p>Written submissions are a
most important part of the appeal process and so the rules assign times for
them to be filed. The law may indeed be in the bosom of the judge but Counsel
does his client great disservice if he does not identify the applicable law and
give his view of their application through a well argued and articulate written
submissions. Now to the appeal proper.<o:p></o:p>From the pleadings, the
Plaintiff/Appellant’s claim at the trial court was for an order of ejectment
and recovery of possession. He based his claim on a 1972 conveyance from the
Asere Stool which formed the basis of his Land Title Certificate. He said he
put a caretaker on the land but upon the latter’s death, the defendants entered
the land to ply their trades. He allowed </main>