SUSAN BANDOH vs. DR. MRS. MAXWELL APEAGYEI-GYAMFI AND ALEX GYIMAH [2019]DLSC6502

Date	2019-06-06
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/16/2016
Citation No.	[2019]DLSC6502

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

YEBOAH JSC

APPAU JSC

PWAMANG JSC

MARFUL-SAU JSC

JACOB NOI FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.

YAW D. OPPONG FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2019]DLSC6502
																																						<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" >SUSAN BANDOH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DR. MRS. MAXWELL APEAGYEI-GYAMFI AND
ALEX GYIMAH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS)<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. J4/16/2016 &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;DATE: 6TH JUNE, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>JACOB NOI FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/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">

YAW D. OPPONG FOR THE
DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING),
YEBOAH JSC, APPAU JSC, PWAMANG JSC, MARFUL-SAU JSC<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">

</div>MARFUL-SAU,
JSC: - This is an appeal against the unanimous decision of the Court of
Appeal dated the 29th January 2015, which reversed the judgment of
the trial High Court dated the 2nd December 2008. In this appeal,
the plaintiff/ respondent/ appellant will be known as the appellant, while the defendants/
appellants/ respondents shall be referred to as respondents. The brief facts of
the case are that appellant’s mother one Dr. Evelyn Vanderpuye acquired the
land in dispute in the 1970’s from the Nungua Stool. After the said acquisition
the mother went into possession and erected corner pillars on the land and in
1979 a lease was executed for the mother which was registered at the Land
Registry as No. 1411/1992. According to Appellant they constructed a
boys-quarters on the land and put caretakers on the land. The respondents
however, entered the land destroyed the corner pillars, covered their reservoir
and started developing the land hurriedly.<o:p></o:p>The respondents disputed the claims by appellant
and contended the land in dispute did not belong to the Nungua Stool. They
posited that the land in dispute had been adjudged by two judgments, by the
Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court to belong to the Nii Ashong Mlitse family
of Teshie, from whom the Respondents took a lease in 1997. According to the
Respondents they registered their lease at the Land Title Registry and obtained
their Title Certificate in 2001. The Respondents claim they went into
possession after the grant, placed corner pillars, sand stones and blocks on
the land ready to construct a school. It was also the case of the Respondents
that the grantor of the Appellant, Nii Odai Ayiku IV, had been destooled in
1967, so he could not have granted a valid lease to the mother of Appellant. In
effect the respondent claimed that the lease of the appellant was null and
void.<o:p></o:p>On these facts the trial High Court entered
judgment for appellant, however, on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the said
judgment of the High Court was reversed. The Court of Appeal based its judgment
on the decision of Banga v. Djanie {1998-99} 1 GLR 510, CA and the Supreme
Court judgment in Republic v. High Court, Accra, Exparte Laryea Mensah
{1998-99} SCGLR 360. The Court of Appeal in its judgment, the subject of this
appeal, held that the two cases cited above had adjudged that Adjirigano lands
are owned by the Nii Ashong Mlitse family, which family granted the land in
dispute to the Respondents. The Court of Appeal therefore held that the
Respondents had a better title to the disputed land. <o:p></o:p>The appellant being dissatisfied with the decision
of the Court of Appeal has appealed to this court urging us to set aside the
judgment. In his Amended Notice of Appeal, 15 (fifteen) grounds of appeal were
formulated, most of which do not comply with the rules of this court. Rule 6
(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, CI 16, provides that a Notice of Appeal shall
set forth the grounds of appeal and shall state the particulars of a
misdirection or an error of law, if that is alleged. An appeal is a creature of
statute and for that matter this court has held in several decided cases the
need for appellants to strictly comply with the law and rules regulating the
appeal.<o:p></o:p>In
Sandema -Nab v. Asangalia &amp; Others (1996-97) SCGLR 302, this court
delivered at page 306 as follows: -<o:p></o:p>‘’Now
it must be appreciated that an appeal is a creature of statute and therefore no
one has an inherent right to it. Where a statute does not provide for right of
appeal, no court has jurisdiction to confer that right in a dispute determined
under that statute. Similarly, where a right of appeal is conferred as of right
or with leave or with special leave, the right is to be exercised within the
four corners of the statute and the relevant procedural regulations, as a court
will not have jurisdiction t</main>