AGBOADA v. KPONOR AND OTHERS [1961] GLR 670
15 November 1961 · PREMPEH J · ≈ 2 min read
[1961] SLR (HC) 76Other citation styles and permanent link
SLR is the Superlaw Reports citation series assigned by SuperLawGH. It is not an official law report. Suggested styles are a guide, so check your institution’s style guide.
DIVISION: IN THE HIGH COURT, HO
DATE: 15TH NOVEMBER, 1961
BEFORE: PREMPEH, J.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL from a judgment of the South Anlo Appeal Court allowing an appeal from the South Anlo Local Court “A” in favour of the plaintiff.
COUNSEL
J. Arthur for the defendants-appellants.
F. T. C. Amorin for the plaintiff-respondent.
JUDGMENT OF PREMPEH J.
In this appeal the trial court held that the plaintiff-appellant-respondent who claimed a declaration of title to the land the subject matter of the dispute — by means of purchase had failed to establish his title thereto, and it dismissed the respondent’s claim. On the evidence it is clear that the respondent failed to call his vendor as a witness, nor did he join him as a party to the suit to protect his title, and in my view, the trial court quite properly held as it did. It is my further view that the judgment of the native appeal court reversing that of the trial court is erroneous. Counsel has drawn the court’s attention to a judgment of this court given on the 13th October, 1961, in a suit entitled Amegago Kponor, Kwashie Kponor, J. J. Kponor, and Dzitorwoko v. Agbenuza Allitor, H. K. Atitsogbui, Akaba K. B. Agbodzo, and K. E. Boati. It is to be noted that the plaintiffs-respondents therein are the defendants-appellants herein, and from the evidence in this case, it is clear that some of the appellants in that case, in particular Agbenuza Allitor, are the vendors of the plaintiff-respondent herein of this same area of land in dispute. I have taken judicial notice of that judgment, and I permitted it to be put in evidence and marked exhibit A. In that judgment, the defendants-appellants herein were adjudged by the trial court as the right owners of the land which is the same as the one now in dispute, and that judgment was confirmed on appeal by this court. I cannot see how in these circumstances the plaintiff-respondent can be entitled to the land the subject-matter of this dispute. In spite of the fact that the appeal was fixed for hearing for the 8th November, 1961, on his own application, the plaintiff-respondent failed to appear to argue his appeal. For the reasons stated above, I must [p.671] of [1961] GLR 670 allow this appeal, and set aside the judgment of the South Anlo Appeal Court and restore that of the South Anlo Local Court “A”.
I award the appellants costs in this court which I assess at 30 guineas, and direct that they shall have their taxed costs in the native appeal court.
DECISION
Appeal allowed.
