AKOSUA DUFIE VRS.pdf - Judicial Training Institute

conclusively, either by traditional evidence, or by overt acts of
ownership exercised in respect of the land in dispute.”
As stated the plaintiffs led evidence to discharge of the onus that lay on them.///
as outlined above in this opinion. There was evidence from the PW1 Afua Manu
the widow of the late Kwaku Manu that the original plot was eaten up or
swallowed by the newly constructed road, PW5 operated the provisions store
that was sold for #400.00 by Kwaku Poku out of which #300 was used for the
building and #300 for developing the Abompe farm; PW2, Kofi Adu, supported
the claim that Kwaku Poku cultivated the Abompe farm; PW3, Charles Kusi and
the PW4 Amma Ode, corroborated the plaintiff’s evidence that the second
plaintiff’s sister, the deceased 1 st plaintiff contributed to the acquisition of the
house, which consisted of providing electricity power and other utilities to the
building, and also cement blocks for a fence wall around the building.
The plaintiffs having led that kind of evidence in favor of the family as owners of
the disputed properties, the onus shifted to the defendants who laid ownership
in the properties in Kwaku Poku, to lead that kind of evidence that would tilt the
balance of the probabilities in their favor.
The defendants accepted the gauntlet and led evidence by the DW1 Dauda Ali a
caretaker for Kwaku Poku’s cocoa farm at Siiso and a house in the Stadium area
in Kumasi. It is common knowledge that that is not the same as New Amakom
where the disputed house is situated. The DW2 Isaac Asare Lartey said he was
a tenant and the first defendant his landlady as per the tenancy agreement in
Exhibit D.
In this appeal, the learned trial judge properly directed himself in resolving the
dispute before him by referring to the principle in Kodilinye v Odu (2 WACA),
explained in Ricketts v Addo [1975] 2 GLR, before coming to his judgment.
It is trite that an appeal to this court is by way of a rehearing and this court will
consider the evidence led at the trial to see whether or not it supported the
judgment of the lower courts, and the submissions before it in support of or
against the appeal. I must observe from the record that the 1 st plaintiff died in
the course of the trial but was never substituted, thus leaving the second as the
lone crusader.
In support of ground one of appeal, the appellant submitted that the Court of
Appeal confirmed the findings of the trial judge relying on the evidence adduced
at the trial by the second plaintiff, supported as it were by the PW1, Afua Manu
the widow of Kwaku Poku and the PW5, Yaw Agyei his nephew. The Court of
Appeal considered the evidence as corroborating each other; for example, the
13