PAPA YAW SIRIBOE AND PAPITA SIRIBOE vs. AGNES AMPONSAH [2022]DLSC11871

Date	2022-11-16
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/23/2022
Citation No.	[2022]DLSC11871

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC (PRESIDING)

PROF. KOTEY JSC

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC

AMADU JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

CONSTANTINE K. M. KUDZEDZI ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS.

JOHN MERCER ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/ APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.

[2022]DLSC11871
																																						<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" >PAPA YAW SIRIBOE AND PAPITA
SIRIBOE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p><a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>AGNES AMPONSAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;(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;">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.
J4/23/2022&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:
16TH&nbsp;&nbsp;NOVEMBER 2022<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL <o:p></o:p>CONSTANTINE K. M. KUDZEDZI ESQ. FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/<o:p></o:p>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;">

JOHN MERCER ESQ. FOR
THE DEFENDANT/ APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC (PRESIDING), PROF. KOTEY JSC, LOVELACE-JOHNSON
(MS.) JSC, AMADU JSC, PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;LOVELACE-JOHNSON
(JSC):-<o:p></o:p>The
designation of the parties at the High Court will be maintained in this appeal.<o:p></o:p>The facts of this matter are not complicated. It
is a fact that though differently described, the parties are laying claim to
the same piece of land, described as plot No K 21, by both of them, even if
with a slight variation in size (0.31 as opposed to 0.37 of an acre). It is
also a fact that while the plaintiffs found their title to the land on a grant
by the Anona Royal Family of Apremdo in the year 2014, the Defendants found
their title on a lease in the year 2011 from the Government of Ghana, the land
the subject matter in dispute, according to them, being State land.<o:p></o:p>See the writ of summons, statement of claim and
statement of defence and counterclaim at pages 1-4, and 9-10 of the Record of Appeal.
(ROA)<o:p></o:p>The issue at the core of this dispute, as rightly
stated by the Court of appeal in its judgment found at page 401 of the ROA and
reproduced in the Statement of Case of counsel for the plaintiffs, is<o:p></o:p>“whether
the disputed land is state land vested in the President in trust for the people
and managed by the Lands Commission or whether it constitutes private property
validly conveyed to the Respondents as part of their Grantors’ ancestral lands”<o:p></o:p>The trial High Court found for the plaintiffs and
stated in its judgment at page 252 of the ROA that<o:p></o:p>“The
evidence supports a finding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land
at the [sic] the defendant went unto it. Given the plaintiffs’ prior
possession, the law protects them against all except one who could prove
superior title. The defendant has not proved a superior title. The plaintiff
thus succeeds in proving ownership against the defendant and so I declare”<o:p></o:p>Upon appeal by the defendant, the Court of Appeal
took the position that the evidence led during the trial<o:p></o:p>“clearly
preponderate in favour of the Appellant’s version that the disputed land
constitutes state land which has been validly conveyed to her by the Lands
Commission under Lease dated 24th August 2012.” See page 414 of the ROA<o:p></o:p>It is their dissatisfaction with the resolution of
the core issue earlier stated in the above manner by the Court of Appeal that
has led to the plaintiffs launching the present appeal to this court.<o:p></o:p>In sum, the complaints by the plaintiffs per their
eight grounds of appeal found at page 419 of the ROA are that the Court of
Appeal did not consider their case, erred on who carried the burden of proving
that the disputed land was State land, misconstrued and misapplied the
presumption of regularity, erred on the import it put on exhibit D and
misapplied the dictum of a case it relied on to arrive at its judgment.<o:p></o:p>