ERNESTINA OPOKUAH vs. ADWOA NYAMEKYE SUBST. BY EMMANUEL OSEI KISSI AND THE CHIEF REGISTRAR, LAND TITLE REGISTRY [2021]DLSC10761

ERNESTINA OPOKUAH vs. ADWOA NYAMEKYE SUBST. BY EMMANUEL OSEI KISSI AND THE CHIEF... [2021]DLSC10761

Date	2021-05-19
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/21/2020
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC10761

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]DLSC10761
																																						<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;&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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">WILFRED BABA AVIO
FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<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="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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:-<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 a</main>