SUBUNOR AGORVOR vs. MR. J. K. KWAO AND AARON NARH ACHIA [2019]DLSC6259

Date	2019-03-27
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/07/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLSC6259

ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING)

GBADEGBE JSC

PWAMANG JSC

DORDZIE JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

SEFAKOR AKPABLAR FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS

G.H. QUIST FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2019]DLSC6259
																																						<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" >SUBUNOR
AGORVOR<o:p></o:p>{PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT}<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MR. J. K. KWAO AND AARON NARH
ACHIA&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; {DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS}<o:p></o:p>[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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/07/2018&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; DATE: 27TH MARCH, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>SEFAKOR AKPABLAR 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">G.H.
QUIST FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING), GBADEGBE JSC, PWAMANG JSC,
DORDZIE JSC, AMEGATCHER JSC&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

</div>GBADEGBE,
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal from the judgment of the CA by
which the decision of the trial High Court in the matter herein, a land cause
was reversed. In these proceedings, we will retain the description of the
parties which they had before the trial High Court.&nbsp; Similarly, reference to the grounds of appeal
will be made in the manner in which they were set out in the notice of appeal.
Before us, the defendants have lodged an onslaught against the judgment of the
CA on several grounds. These grounds relate to the capacity of the plaintiff to
mount the action, the order of possession that was declared in the plaintiff
and the finding in trespass. The said grounds will be referred to in so far as
they are relevant to the issues for our decision in this appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The backdrop to the action herein may be briefly
narrated as follows. The plaintiff took out the action herein against the
defendants claiming a declaration of title and other ancillary reliefs. The
action herein was provoked according to the plaintiff by the defendants’
unlawful entry upon portions of the disputed land that their family has been in
possession of over several years.&nbsp; While
the plaintiff claimed the land by means of a grant obtained from the defendants’
family by their predecessor in title and their subsequent undisturbed
possession of same until acts of encroachment thereupon by the defendant’s
family, the defendants claimed that the land was only granted over the period
at different times to two members of the plaintiff’s family for farming and
related activities only. The said grant, it was asserted by the defendants was
not absolute and was accompanied by the acknowledgement of the title of the
defendants’ family by their grantees. After the close of pleadings and other
proceedings had towards trial, the action proceeded to trial. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>After a full-scale trial of the action, the High
Court delivered its judgment by which it accepted the version of the plaintiff
and rejected that of the defendants. Accordingly, the trial court decreed title
in respect of the disputed land in the plaintiff and granted in his favor
ancillary reliefs including damages. For trespass. The defendants promptly
appealed to CA and succeeded in obtaining a reversal of the judgment. In
particular, the learned justices of the CA concluded that the plaintiff was
unable to prove the grant that he alleged and as such declared title to the
disputed land in the defendants on the counterclaim filed to the action. It is
significant to note that in the intermediate appellate court, the plaintiff did
not submit a statement of case in answer to that of the defendants who had
appealed from the decision of the trial court. Following the reversal of the
pivotal determination of title to the land, the CA declared possessory right only
in the plaintiff’s family in relation to the disputed property. These
proceedings arise out of the appeal by the defendants against the grant of
possessory rights in respect of the disputed land to the plaintiff.
Notwithstanding the reversal of the judgment of the trial court in favor of the
defendants on the question of title to the disputed land, the defendants have
lodged an appeal to this Court. The questions which turn on the grounds of
appeal before us shall conveniently be considered under various heads
commencing with the challenge to the capacity of the plaintiff to have issued
out the action herein.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;CHALLENGE TO PLAINTIFF’S CAPACITY TO MOUNT THE
ACTION HEREIN.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The ground
relating to the plaintiff</main>