ERNESTINA OPOKUAH vs. ADWOA NYAMEKYE (SUBST. BY EMMANUEL OSEI KISSI) AND THE CHIEF REGISTRAR, LAND TITLE REGISTRY [2021]DLSC10684

ERNESTINA OPOKUAH vs. ADWOA NYAMEKYE (SUBST. BY EMMANUEL OSEI KISSI) AND THE CH... [2021]DLSC10684

Date	2021-05-19
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/21/2020
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC10684

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC (PRESIDING)

PWAMANG JSC

AMADU JSC

HONYENUGA JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

ARCHIE MARTIN DANSO JNR. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT

WILFRED BABA AVIO FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

[2021]DLSC10684
																																						<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" >ERNESTINA OPOKUAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ADWOA NYAMEKYE (SUBST. BY EMMANUEL
OSEI KISSI) AND THE CHIEF REGISTRAR, LAND TITLE REGISTRY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/21/2020&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;DATE: 19TH MAY, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>ARCHIE MARTIN DANSO JNR. FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.<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;">

WILFRED BABA
AVIO FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>BAFFOE-BONNIE
JSC (PRESIDING), PWAMANG JSC, AMADU JSC, HONYENUGA JSC, PROF. MENSA-BONSU
(MRS.) 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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;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>&nbsp;BAFFOE-BONNIE,
JSC:-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>My
lords, I wish it to be placed on record that this is one of the cases where
their Lordships were of the view that the appeal should be dismissed summarily,
essentially, because their Lordships were of the view that the trial High Court
Judge had identified the correct issues and had done a proper analysis and
evaluation of the evidence adduced and had come to the correct conclusions. The
Court of Appeal had also properly concurred in the findings of fact made and confirmed
the conclusions. Further, this case did not raise any new principles of law of
public interest. So this brief ruling should be read alongside the Judgment
delivered by the Court of Appeal<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against concurrent findings by the High Court in its judgment
dated 3rd May, 2017 and the Court of Appeal whose judgment was
delivered on 25th October, 2018, both in favour of the 1st
defendant/respondent/respondent (the 1st defendant) and against the
plaintiff/appellant/appellant (the plaintiff). The authorities are settled that
we ought to be slow in reversing such findings unless a compelling case is made
by the appellant. The cases include Achoro
v Akanfela [1996-97] SCGLR 209;&nbsp; Asibey v
Gbomittah &amp; Commander Osei [2012] 2 SCGLR 800 and Acquie v. Tijani [2012] SCGLR
1252; and Koglex Ltd v Field (No.2)
[2000] SCGLR 175. In the case of Gregory
v Tandoh [2010] SCGLR 971, the Supreme Court, speaking through Dotse, JSC
stated the grounds on which the court would depart from concurrent findings in
the following passage at pages 986-987 of Report;<o:p></o:p>“…….a second
appellate court, like this Supreme Court can and is entitled to depart from findings
of fact made by the trial court and concurred in by the first appellate court
under the following circumstances: First, here from the record the findings of
fact by the trial court are clearly not supported by evidence on record and the
reasons in support of the findings are unsatisfactory; Second, where the
findings of fact by the trial court can be seen from the record to be either
perverse or inconsistent with the totality &nbsp;of evidence led by the witnesses and the
surrounding circumstances of the entire evidence on record; third, where the
findings of fact made by the trial court are consistently inconsistent with
important documentary evidence on record; fourth, where the first appellate court
had wrongly applied the principle of law in Achoro vrs Akanfela (already
referred to&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;
supra) and other cases on the principle, the second appellate court must
feel free to interfere with the said findings of fact, in order to ensure that
absolute justice is done in the case.”<o:p></o:p>In
this appeal the parties are disputing over ownership of a piece of land at New
Achimota lying along the Nsawam-Accra Road. Their claims are based on the
respective title documents of their grantors which include site plans all
tracing their root of title from the Onamrokor Adain Family of Accra. Both
parties’ documents of title are registered under the Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122) but in addition, the grantor of
the 1st defendant registered his title under the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L
152) and was issued with Land Certificate No. GA 16344. On the ground the parties are contesting over the same piece of
land but the site plans in their respective documents do not relate exactly to
the same land. The plaintiff after the execution of a deed of assignment by
Kingsley Adu Baffour in her favour on 29th July, 2004 went on the
disputed land but met some mechanics on it. She initiated proceedings in the
High Court in 2006 to evict them and when this came to the attention of the 1st
defendant, she applied to join the case on the basis of the ownership of her
grantor, Emmanuel K Tweneboah but she was denied on technical grounds and the
plaintiff proceeded with developing the land. Nonetheless, the plaintiff
subsequently tried to register the land in dispute in her name at the Land
Title Registry and she was notified of the earlier recoded interest of the said
Emmanuel K Tweneboah so she had no option but to sue him together with the Land
Title Registrar in this present case. As Emmanuel K Tweneboah was deceased the
1st defendant applied and was substituted for him. <o:p></o:p>During
the proceedings in this second case, the High Court ordered for a composite
plan covering the site plans in the documents of title of the parties to be
drawn by the Greater-Accra Regional Head of the Survey and Mapping Division of
the Lands Commission. Thi</main>