AMA NIMO BOATEMAA vs. NANA BOATENG [2019]DLCA6335

Date	2019-03-26
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/04/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLCA6335

F. G. KORBIEH JA (PRESIDING)

M. M. AGYEMANG (MRS.) JA

M. A. WOOD (MRS.) JA

ABIGAIL OFORI APPIAH FOR PLAINTIFF / APPELLANT

NO REPRESENTATION FOR DEFENDANT /RESPONDENT

[2019]DLCA6335
																																						<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" >AMA NIMO
BOATEMAA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA BOATENG<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION),
KOFORIDUA]<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. H1/04/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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
MARCH, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>ABIGAIL
OFORI APPIAH FOR PLAINTIFF / 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">

NO
REPRESENTATION FOR DEFENDANT /RESPONDENT<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">

F.
G. KORBIEH, JA (PRESIDING), M. M. AGYEMANG (MRS.), JA AND M. A. WOOD (MRS.), JA<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;line-height:115%;mso-outline-level:1;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>AGYEMANG (MRS.), JA:<o:p></o:p>In this appeal against the judgment of the High
Court, Koforidua the appellant’s main complaint, set out as the sole ground of
appeal, is that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence led. <o:p></o:p>These are the matters that have given rise to the
instant appeal.<o:p></o:p>The original plaintiff (now deceased and
substituted in this appeal as the appellant), commenced an action against the
defendant herein (also deceased and substituted in this appeal as the
respondent), and one other&nbsp; (deceased and
not involved in the instant appeal), seeking inter alia, a declaration of title
to a parcel of land, the sum of Ȼ1,400,000 being special damages for twenty palm
trees felled by the second defendant, and a perpetual injunction restraining
the defendants and their privies from in any manner, trespassing onto the
plaintiff’s land.<o:p></o:p>It was the plaintiff’s case in pleading, that the
land in dispute described as: <a name="_Hlk3495431">lying at Densu Sector 11,
Block K Koforidua, and bounded on all sides by the properties of Akua Adai,
Kofi Bimpong, Akua Manu and Nana Dabrehene, </a>measuring 5.44 acres more or
less, was gifted to her by one of her uncles: Kwadwo Amankwah. The land which
she alleged was originally owned by her grandfather Okyeame Adu allegedly became
hers in this manner: Okyeame Adu allegedly gave same to his two sons Kwadwo
Amankwah, and Kwame Opoku. Upon the death of Kwame Opoku, his brother Kwadwo
Amankwah allegedly gifted the portion worked on by the deceased Kwame Opoku, to
the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>According to the plaintiff, she went on the land
worked there with her daughter who was twelve years old at the time, for about
sixty years. <o:p></o:p>It was the plaintiff’s pleading that her daughter
asked one Kumah to find a farm labourer for them, and that Kumah’s own son whom
he gave to them as their farm labourer, worked for them, sharing the proceeds of
the farm until the said son complained to the plaintiff that Kumah had felled
twenty-eight palm trees. The plaintiff further pleaded that it was following
her complaint to the Police regarding Kumah’s conduct that the first defendant laid
claim to the land. Kumah (now deceased) was sued as the second defendant.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff who in her pleading, alleged the
boundaries of the land she claimed to be: bounded on all sides by the
properties of Akua Adai, Kofi Bimpong, Akua Manu and Nana Dabrehene, gave her
boundaries of the land in dispute during cross-examination as: as bounded by <a name="_Hlk3585330">Juabenhene, Maame Sika Tena, Kwame Duku and Aboah. <o:p></o:p></a>She called one witness in proof of her case: PW1. <o:p></o:p>It was the evidence of PW1 that she presided over
an arbitration between the parties in which the plaintiff, the descendant of
the alleged original owner Okyeame Adu, was found to be the owner of the land
in dispute, and that the defendant had trespassed onto her land. When pressed,
PW1 alleged that the panel of a</main>