OKONTI BORLEY AND OKONTI BORTEY vs. HAUSBAUER LIMITED [2021]DLSC10078

Date	2021-03-10
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/48/2013
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC10078

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC (PRESIDING)

APPAU JSC

DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC

HONYENUGA JSC

AMADU JSC

ARCHIE DANSO FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS

BELINDA PWAMANG FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

[2021]DLSC10078
																																						<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" >OKONTI BORLEY AND OKONTI BORTEY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>HAUSBAUER
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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;line-height:115%;tab-stops:266.7pt 309.3pt;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/48/2013&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:
10TH MARCH, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ARCHIE DANSO FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">BELINDA PWAMANG FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.
<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC (PRESIDING), APPAU JSC, DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC, HONYENUGA
JSC, AMADU JSC<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="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;tab-stops:center 234.0pt;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>&nbsp;AMADU JSC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:
justify;text-indent:-36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo1">(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
In the High Court
Accra, the Plaintiffs/Respondents/Appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellants’) obtained judgment against
the Defendant/Appellant/Respondent (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Respondent’) for all the reliefs endorsed in their
statement of claim. The Trial Judge further ordered that the registration of
the subject matter in dispute by the Land Title Registry in the name of the
Respondent herein be expunged from the records.&nbsp;&nbsp; On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the
judgment of the High Court was wholly reversed. It is the judgment of the Court
of Appeal which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<p class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:
justify;text-indent:-36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo1">(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The question for
our decision in this appeal therefore is which of the two lower courts came to
the right conclusion on the evidence placed before them in the matter. This is
because whereas the Learned Trial Judge accepted the case of the Appellants on
the strength of the evidence before him, the Learned Justices of the Court of
Appeal unanimously upon a reevaluation of the entire record, arrived at their
own finding that the Trial Judge failed to appreciate that on the preponderance
of the totality of the evidence the Appellants who carried the burden of proof
had failed to discharge their statutory burden.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo1">(3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
In the
circumstances, our duty in the determination of this appeal largely depends on
our own reevaluation of the record of appeal by which we should arrive at our
own conclusion on the evidence adduced by the parties so as to justify where
appropriate an interference with the decision of either of the two lower courts
when satisfied from our consideration of the totality of evidence that, one of the
verdicts was either unreasonable, perverse or unsupported by the evidence such
that appellate interference would be authorized and justified. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:
justify;text-indent:-36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !s</main>