carboo ltd vs akua mintu 12-12-11 - Jtighana.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

forms part of the larger parcel of which the execution Creditor claims to be the property of the judgment debtor on account of which same was attached. The parties are therefore ad idem on the subject matter; hence the issue remains the determination of ownership. It is also my view that the Claimant in this case stands in the position of a plaintiff in any ordinary land suit. He therefore foremost assumes the burden of proving his ownership or title to the land which his claim relates. He discharges this burden by adducing sufficient evidence that will tilt the balance of probabilities in his favour. This is in obvious accordance with Sections 10, 11 (4) and 14 of the Evidence Act 1975 NRCD 323. See FOSUA & ADO POKU VRS DUFIE & ADU POKU MENSAH (2009) SCGLR 310 YAW KWASI VRS ARHIN DAVIDS (2007-2008) SCGLR 58. Learned Counsel for both the Claimant and the Execution Creditor sufficiently addressed me on this position and concluded as I have done that the claimant assumes the obligation of proving his claim. Perhaps I should say that having regard to the nature of the documentary and other pieces of evidence adduced on behalf of the Execution Creditor forming the basis of the claim that the property belongs to Akua Mentu, the Judgment Debtor, the burden on the Claimant becomes even heavier and more involving. And what was this evidence? Notably, the Execution Creditor (its representative) did not mount the box. But Akua Mentu testifying in that behalf stated as follows: She acquired her parcel of land measuring 3.91 acres from the La Klanna Quater represented by its head Nii Kotey Amli III in March 1999. The grant is 4
evidenced by an indenture (Exhibit ‘1’). She registered the land at the lands Commission and later sought to register her title at the land Title Registry. For this purpose she went through the process. She said she went to the land valuation board to do the stamping then proceeded to the title Registry to acquire a Yellow Card; then to the survey Department for a cadastral plan. Thereafter she caused a publication to be done in the newspapers. Then emerged one Kofi Amoakohene challenging her title registration. The two of them with their lawyers were invited to the title Registry for adjudication in the course of which her grantor, Nii Kotey Amli III confirmed the grant to her. In the end, the Title Registry found for her and issued her with the land certificate Exhibit ‘4’. She said after all this she decided to do some drainage work on the land. She went to the Hydro Services and had an engineer to prepare drawings which she tendered as Exhibits “11 and 11A”. She then bought Culverts and constructed the drainage up to a point. Obviously, this testimony stands strong in proof of title to the land; the epitome of it being the issuance of land title certificate. The defence in this case is further entitled to the benefit of the presumption that the certificate was duly issued. The Land Title Registry in issuing the certificate performed its official duty and by Section 37 (1) of the Evidence Act 1975 NRCD 323 “it is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed”. This is a rebuttable presumption but it imposes upon the party against whom it operates the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion as to the non-existence of the presumed fact: 5
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE
Page 3: It will however be needful to state
Page 7 and 8: interests and claims whatsoever. An
Page 9 and 10: Q: I further put it to you that the
Page 11 and 12: acquisition. Dr. Nii Kotey Djane’
Page 13 and 14: writ of fifa. The execution by the

carboo ltd vs akua mintu 12-12-11 - Jtighana.org

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?