JUSTICE GILBERT MENSAH QUAYE vs. KOIWAH INVESTMENT CO.LTD, GERSHON ADJIN, DR. ADU GYAMFI AND INTERNATIONAL CENTRAL GOSPEL CHURCH [2019]DLSC6206

JUSTICE GILBERT MENSAH QUAYE vs. KOIWAH INVESTMENT CO.LTD, GERSHON ADJIN, DR. A... [2019]DLSC6206

Date	2019-01-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/42/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLSC6206

YEBOAH JSC (PRESIDING)

GBADEGBE JSC

APPAU JSC

MARFUL-SAU JSC

KOTEY JSC

WILLIAM A. ADDO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

WILFRED BABA AVIO FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

[2019]DLSC6206
																																						<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" >JUSTICE GILBERT MENSAH QUAYE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KOIWAH INVESTMENT CO.LTD, GERSHON ADJIN, DR. ADU GYAMFI AND
INTERNATIONAL CENTRAL GOSPEL CHURCH<o:p></o:p>(1ST
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.
J4/42/2018&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
30TH JANUARY, 2019 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>WILLIAM
A. ADDO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<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">

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

</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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARFUL-SAU, JSC:-<o:p></o:p>This appeal is taken against the judgment of the
Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the High Court. In these
proceedings we intend to give the parties the designation they had before the
trial court. The 1st defendant who lost the contest both at the High Court and
the Court of Appeal now appeals to this court on the following grounds:- <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;">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
Court of Appeal erred when it held that estoppel was inapplicable to the Deed
of Gift because it was the Deed of Purchase which was affected by the Judgment
of Ollenu J, in Suit No. 151/1960 dated 27th July, 1962 entitled
Borkete Osonoware &amp; 23 Others v. Nii Odai Ayiku IV &amp; Quaye Tawiah, when
the said judgment nullified the Deed of Purchase made to the
Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent’s father in 1958 or 1959 on the&nbsp; basis that the attesting witnesses whose
consent and concurrence the Plaintiff/ Respondent/ Respondent relied on to prove
the Deed of Gift were not the accredited elders whose consent and concurrence
was necessary for a valid grant of Nungua Stool in 1958 or 1959.<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;">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
judgment is against the weight of evidence<o:p></o:p>From the record of appeal no additional ground was
filed as indicated in the Notice of Appeal filed on the 28th November 2017.
Ground (1) as formulated above clearly offends rule 6 (4) and (5) of the Rules
of this court in the sense that it is argumentative and narrative in nature.
Under Rule 6(5) of CI 16, any ground of appeal which is not permitted under the
rule may be struck out by the court on its own motion or on application by the
Respondent. However, since the ultimate objective of this court is to do
justice on the merit of cases, we shall refrain from striking out that ground,
but sever the offending parts and amend the said ground to read as follow: - ‘’the Court of Appeal erred when it held that estoppel was inapplicable to the
Deed of Gift’’. Indeed, the severed parts of the ground are matters that
could be addressed in the statement of case.<o:p></o:p>In Attorney
– General v. Faroe Atlantic Co. Ltd. {2005-2006} SCGLR 271, this court had
cause to strike out offending parts of two of the grounds of appeal and amended
the two grounds of appeal for the Appellant. Similarly in West Laurel Co. Ltd v. Agricultural Development Bank {2007-2008} 1 SCGLR
556, the court found grounds (2) and (4) of the Appeal as argumentative and
narrative and as such struck out ground (2) but waived non- compliance with the
Rules in respect of ground (4). As indicated we in intend to follow the
practice in this court as demonstrated in the cases cited above and amend
ground (1) of the Appeal, as stated above. We would like to sound a caution
that by amending the offending ground instead of striking it out, this Court is
not encouraging non-compliance of its rules. This Court shall in all
appropriate cases insist on the strict adherence of the rules that regulate its
proceedings. I now address ground (1) as amended by the court.<o:p></o:p>The fundamental complaint of the 1st Defendant
against the judgments of both the High Court and Court of Appeal is that the
court erred in holding that estoppel was inapplicable to the Deed of Gift
because the Deed of Gift was not affected by the judgment of Ollenu J. There is
no dispute on the record that in Suit No. 151</main>