[2019]DLSC6573 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:#00B0F0">AMIDU ALHASSAN AMIDU & ANOR.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:#00B0F0">MUTIU ALAWIYE & 6 ORS.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">(DEFENDANTS/AAPPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></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"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/54/2018 DATE: 24<sup>TH</sup> JULY, 2019<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">AGNES OPAREBEA MANTE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">.<o:p></o:p></span></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:6.0pt;text-align:justify;border:none; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">C. K. KOKA FOR THE DEFENDANTS/ APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">CORAM: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC (PRESIDING), GBADEGBE JSC, BENIN JSC, APPAU JSC, PWAMANG JSC<o:p></o:p></span></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"> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none; mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">JUDGMENT</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">MAJORITY OPINION WAS READ BY PWAMANG, JSC:-<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">The parties to this appeal are litigating over ownership of a rather small piece of land at Okaishie in Central Accra which they claim through their respective predecessors-in-title. The land was acquired in the early twentieth century when the city of Accra was much smaller and not laid out as we have it today. The original acquisitions of both predecessors-in-title were covered by conveyances which delineated their grants on site plans. At the trial in the High Court, the parties led oral evidence and tendered their respective documents and site plans and a court appointed surveyor prepared a composite plan. The surveyor testified and was cross-examined. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">At the close of the trial, the High Court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and granted the reliefs they claimed save for relief (e), a claim for damages for trespass. Upon an appeal by the defendants, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge’s findings on the evidence, set aside its judgment and found for the defendants. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 15<sup>th</sup> June, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed from it to this court. In this judgment, the plaintiffs/respondents/appellants shall be referred to as plaintiffs and the defendants/appellants/respondents as defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">The only ground of appeal is that the judgment of the Court of Appeal is against the weight of the evidence. We are therefore called upon to rehear the case, review the evidence in the record, and come to our own conclusion as to whether the view taken of the evidence by the Court of Appeal is correct. See <b>Akufo-Addo v Catheline [1992] 1 GLR 377.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">But, before proceeding to examine the evidence, I wish to clarify the matter about public lane or thoroughfare in the area of the disputed land pleaded by the plaintiffs in paragraphs 15 and 16 of their statement of claim and the defendants in paragraph 7b of their amended defence. The plaintiffs averred that the defendants have occupied and built structures on a public lane that, from the site plan in the document of their processor-in-title, was supposed to lay south of their land. Based on this averment, they claimed in their relief (c) for an order for defendants to demolish the structures they have on the said public lane. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">However, even a casual reading of the whole statement of claim makes it obvious that that matter was completely extraneous to the substantive case of the plaintiffs and their claim for declaration of title to land covered by their document of title. If by their own pleadings that public lane did not form part of their land, on what legal ground could they claim relief in respect of it? The plaintiffs have not described the boundaries of the public lane so in respect of which land are the structures to be demolished? A cause of action in public nuisance cannot lie in law as plaintiffs alone do not satisfy the number of complainants required for a nuisance to qualify as public. See <b>AG v PYA Quarries [1957] 2 QB 169.</b> What is more, civil suits on public nuisance are brought by the Attorney-General and not private persons. Clearly therefore, plaintiffs had no cause of action against the defendants as far as the alleged public lane was concerned and those averments and the plaintiffs’ relief (c) ought to have been struck out, <i>sua sponte,</i> in the early stages of the case as frivolous, vexatious and likely to embarrass or delay the trial of the action. This the trial court could have done pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court or <b>Or 11 R 18 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I.47)</b>. Consequently, I shall dismiss plaintiffs’ relief (c) <i>in limine</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">The defendants too who could have applied to the court to strike out those offending pleadings did not do so but rather also pleaded that the land allegedly owned by the plaintiffs at Okaishie is a public thoroughfare. The claim of the plaintiffs is for a declaration of title and whether the land is a thoroughfare or not is of no legal significance as in law ownership of land is a question completely different from its use. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">Because these frivolous and vexatious pleadings were not expunged, copious unnecessary evidence was led on them thereby beclouding the trial judge in his consideration of the real claims of the parties before him. Despite the fact that the Court of Appeal in their judgment rightly took the view that the matter of a public lane or thoroughfare was irrelevant to a determination of the case, the parties in their statements of case filed in this final appeal have persisted in discussing the question of the location of the public lane at length. That is a pointless discussion because, from the evidence on record, the present lay of the area is different from the zoning that pertained about one hundred years back when the ancestors of the parties acquired their respective lands. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">When the irrelevancies are shorn off the pleadings and evidence, the established facts in this case are quite simple and are that, in 1910 the defendants predecessor, Alhaji Shaibu Alawiye, acquired a piece of land described