GLADYS OBENEWAA AFARI vs. NANA DONKOR MANIANOR II, DANIEL K. OHENE AND KWEKU NYAMEKYE [2022]DLSC11690

GLADYS OBENEWAA AFARI vs. NANA DONKOR MANIANOR II, DANIEL K. OHENE AND KWEKU NYA... [2022]DLSC11690

Date	2022-07-13
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/46/2021
Citation No.	[2022]DLSC11690

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC (PRESIDING)

PROF. KOTEY JSC

LOVELACE-JOHNSON JSC

AMADU JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

VICTOR LASSEY ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

MRS. M. Y. N. ACHIAMPONG ESQ. DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS.

[2022]DLSC11690
																																						<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" >GLADYS OBENEWAA AFARI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA DONKOR MANIANOR II, DANIEL K. OHENE AND KWEKU
NYAMEKYE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS)<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;line-height:115%;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/46/2021&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; DATE: 13TH JULY, 2022<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>VICTOR LASSEY ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>MRS. M. Y. N. ACHIAMPONG ESQ.
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/<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%;tab-stops:291.75pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC
(PRESIDING), PROF. KOTEY JSC, LOVELACE-JOHNSON JSC, AMADU 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;line-height:115%;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;INTRODUCTION:<o:p></o:p><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:l3 level1 lfo1">(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The main issue
for our determination in the instant appeal is, which of the two lower courts
properly appreciated and evaluated the evidence on record and ascribed to it
the proper probative value before arriving at their respective conclusions. This
is because while the trial court from its evaluation of the evidence, findings
and conclusions held that the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”)
was entitled to only thirty (30) acres of the land in dispute and entered
judgment in her favour, &nbsp;the Learned
Justices of the Court of Appeal from their own reevaluation of the evidence held
otherwise by granting to the Respondent all the reliefs endorsed on her writ of
summons and statement of claim including her claim to the whole of the 441.98
acres of the disputed land.<o:p></o:p><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:l3 level1 lfo1">(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
In its judgment,
the Court of Appeal found that, on the evidence on record, the Respondent had
sufficiently discharged her statutory burden with respect to her claim against
the 1st to 3rd Defendant/Respondents/Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellants”)
for declaration of title to the parcel of land measuring 441.98 acres as well
as the other consequential reliefs indorsed in her writ of summons.<o:p></o:p><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:l3 level1 lfo1">(3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Our determination
of this appeal will therefore depend on the narrow issue of whether or not on
the evidence on record, the Respondent is entitled to the whole parcel of
441.98 acres described in the schedule to her statement of claim, or that the
trial court’s decision to limit the Respondent’s entitlement to only thirty
(30) acres was founded on the evidence adduced at the trial.<o:p></o:p><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:l3 level1 lfo1">(4)