DONNA AKOSUA OKORIE vs. MARGARET OWUSU A. K. A NANA AKOSUA AND KWABENA ADU-TWUM [2021]DLHC9963

Date	2021-01-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO.C11/19/2019
Citation No.	[2021]DLHC9963

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI

MICHAEL AKOSAH FOR THE APPELLANTS

DERRICK BOAMAH OKYERE FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2021]DLHC9963
																																						<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" >DONNA AKOSUA OKORIE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/ RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MARGARET OWUSU A. K. A NANA AKOSUA AND
KWABENA ADU-TWUM<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/ APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO.C11/19/2019&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; DATE:
25TH JANUARY 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MICHAEL AKOSAH FOR THE APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

DERRICK BOAMAH OKYERE FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FRANCIS
OBIRI<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>The action which has given rise to this appeal was
initiated by the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter called the Respondent)
through her lawful attorney.&nbsp; The writ
was filed by the Respondent on 22nd May 2018 at the Registry of the
District Court, Mamponteng.<o:p></o:p>The Respondent claimed one relief against the Defendants/Appellants,
hereinafter referred to as the appellants.<o:p></o:p>The relief the Respondent claimed against the
Appellants was as follows:<o:p></o:p>“An
order of the court to forcefully eject defendant from plaintiffs’ house number
plot 28 block B at Mamponteng to give the plaintiff possession. “<o:p></o:p>The initial writ was against the 1st
Appellant only.&nbsp; She pleaded not liable
to the Respondents relief. In the course of the hearing, the 2nd Appellant
applied to join the case. The application was granted and he was joined to the
case.&nbsp; There is however, no evidence on
record that, he was asked as to whether he is liable to the Respondent relief
or not after she has been joined to the suit.<o:p></o:p>During the hearing of the case before the trial court,
the Respondent testified through an attorney and was cross examined by the 1st
Appellant.&nbsp; The Respondent’s attorney was
subsequently discharged after the cross-examination by the 1st
Appellant.<o:p></o:p>When the 2nd Appellant was joined to the suit.&nbsp; He also cross examined the Respondent’s
attorney.<o:p></o:p>At the conclusion of the case, the trial judge gave
judgment in favour of the Respondent against the Appellants for the relief
endorsed on the writ of summons.&nbsp; The 1st
Appellant was ordered to vacate from the property in dispute within sixty days
from the date of the judgment.&nbsp; The trial
judge also awarded cost of GH¢2,000.00 against the Appellants.<o:p></o:p>The judgment was delivered on 10th day of
December 2018.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The Appellants being dissatisfied with the decision of
the trial court, lodged appeal 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;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The judgment is against the weight of evidence adduced
at the trial.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trial magistrate erred when she held that, the
property in dispute was the property of the Plaintiff/Respondent and not a
family property of the 2nd Defendant/Appellant.<o:p></o:p>The Appellants prayed in their notice of appeal for
the judgment of the trial court to be reversed or set aside and judgment
entered in favour of the Appellants.<o:p></o:p>It is trite law that, an appeal is by way of
rehearing.&nbsp; This means that, the
appellate court is to analyse the entire Record of Appeal, by taking into consideration
the totality of the evidence on record both oral and documentary so as to
satisfy itself that, on the preponderance of probabilities, the conclusions by
the trial court is reasonably or amply supported by the evidence on record. <o:p></o:p>See: Bakana Ltd V Osei and Another (2014) 77 GMJ 68 CA<o:p</main>