EBENEZER KWAKU, NUMO TEILA KWADWO AND PRINCE MART LIMITED vs. MANKRALO TETTEH OTIBU IV [2021]DLSC10790

EBENEZER KWAKU, NUMO TEILA KWADWO AND PRINCE MART LIMITED vs. MANKRALO TETTEH O... [2021]DLSC10790

Date	2021-07-07
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/53/2021
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC10790

APPAU JSC (PRESIDING)

DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC

PROF. KOTEY JSC

OWUSU (MS.) JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

O. K. OSAFO-BUABENG ESQ. FOR THE 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS

SAMMY ADDO ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

[2021]DLSC10790
																																						<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" >EBENEZER KWAKU, NUMO TEILA KWADWO
AND PRINCE MART LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MANKRALO TETTEH OTIBU IV<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/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. J4/53/2021&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: 7TH JULY, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>O. K. OSAFO-BUABENG ESQ. FOR THE 1ST
AND 2ND DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/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;">

SAMMY ADDO
ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>APPAU JSC (PRESIDING),
DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC, PROF. KOTEY JSC, OWUSU (MS.) 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;APPAU,
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>The
Respondent in this appeal Mankralo Tetteh Otibu, sued the 1st Appellant
herein Ebenezer Kwaku in the trial High Court, claiming his family’s title to a
piece of land measuring 23,552.27 acres, which he said the 1st
Appellant had trespassed onto. He sought further reliefs in the nature of
damages for trespass and perpetual injunction. The 1st Appellant
denied trespassing onto the land; a portion of which he claimed belonged to his
family. He counter-claimed for title to that portion of the said land which is
occupied by members of his family, damages for trespass, recovery of possession
and perpetual injunction. Later, the 2nd Appellant joined in the
action as Co-defendant in the trial High Court on the ground that he was the
head of 1st Appellant’s family. He also counter-claimed for title to
that same portion of the land for and on behalf of his family, order for refund
of rent paid to the Respondent by various occupiers on the land, recovery of
possession and perpetual injunction. That portion of the land which the two
Appellants in this appeal claimed belonged to their family and over which they
counter-claimed, falls within the larger land over which the Respondent sued.
They described it as measuring 14.06 square miles. The disputed land was
therefore the 14.06 square miles of land which lies within the 23,552.27 acres
over which the Respondent sued. There was a 3rd Defendant, a Company
by name Prince Mart Limited, which leaned on the 1st and 2nd
Appellants for support during the trial as a lessee of the Appellants. That
Company is not part of this appeal. The 1st and 2nd Defendants,
who are the Appellants herein, (and would be referred to as such hereinafter),
defended the action together on a claim that the disputed land belonged to
their family.<o:p></o:p>At
the end of the trial, the High Court found the Respondent’s case (then
Plaintiff), more probable than the Appellants. The trial High Court found as a
fact that Appellants’ family is on the disputed land upon permission granted them
by the Respondent’s family, which owns the larger portion including the smaller
portion claimed by the Appellants. The court, however, found that the said
family had been in possession of that smaller portion for a long time. The
trial High court accordingly granted judgment in favour of the Respondent on
all the reliefs sought and dismissed Appellants counter-claim. It ordered the
Appellants not to develop or alienate in any way, any portion of the disputed
land without the permission of the Respondent’s family, which is the allodial
owner of the land. The court went ahead to award damages against the Appellants
for trespass. The trial High Court held: <o:p></o:p>“In
view of Exhibit ‘B’ and by virtue of the aforesaid, the court prefers the
Plaintiff’s evidence over the Defendants and finds as a fact that the Gbesedorm
family is on the disputed land by virtue of the permission granted them by
Plaintiff’s family. Indeed, by virtue of their presence on the disputed
land, the Gbesedorm were able to put in a claim for compensation…<o:p></o:p>As
against the Defendants, the Plaintiff has successfully proved, in my view his
title to the land in dispute on a balance of probabilities. The balance tilts
in favour of the Plaintiff..<o:p></o:p>In
the light of the aforesaid, the Defendants have failed to prove their claim.
Consequently, I dismiss the counterclaim by Defendants herein and declare title
of the disputed land in the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>I
perpetually restrain the 1st Defendant , their heirs, assigns,
grantees, workmen and any person claiming through them from developing ,
alienating, interfering or in any manner dealing with the land the
subject-matter of this suit without the permission and consent of the allodial
owners, the Plaintiff family. I will award damages of GHc10,000.00 in favour of
the Plaintiff against the Defendants for their trespass”. {Emphasis added}<o:p></o:p>Appeal to the Court of Appeal<o:p></o:p>The
Appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial High Court, appealed
against same to the Court of Appeal on six (6) grounds. The grounds of appeal
were: <o:p></o:p>