AKOSUA DUFIE VRS.pdf - Judicial Training Institute

evidence of the second plaintiff was that the construction of the house started
before the second plaintiff left the shores of Ghana for the United Kingdom (UK),
whereas the evidence on the record showed that it took place whilst he was in
the UK. The trial judge found as a fact that Kwaku Poku built the house in
dispute.
The implication was that the house was under construction before the second
plaintiff left for the UK, for there was evidence that the plot acquired by the
second plaintiff was eaten up by the construction of the Kumasi-Accra road;
whilst the second plaintiff was in the U.K; there was no development on the land
for if there had been any that would have been eaten up as well by the said
construction. But the evidence was that whilst the second plaintiff was in Ghana,
the construction had not even started. That was why he only asked Kwaku Poku
to take a replacement plot and not a replacement house. If his evidence were to
be true, that would have been also eaten up during the construction of the road.
In another consideration, the evidence of the second plaintiff/ respondent was
not too creditworthy. Why did he ask Kwaku Manu to take the replacement plot
in his Manu’s name but not his if he was truly the owner of the lost plot?
On the acquisition of the house and the cocoa farms, the trial judge found that
proceeds from the Abompe farms were used to acquire the Siiso farms and the
house in dispute; and also that the family contributed substantially towards the
acquisition. Besides this, the second plaintiff asserted in his evidence that
proceeds from his store and stock-in-trade was used for the same purpose.
This finding has been severely criticized by the appellants. To their counsel, the
evidence by the plaintiffs was inconsistent with each other on fundamental issues
before the court, like the acquisition of the disputed properties and so the
plaintiff’s claims should have been dismissed. I shall come back to this aspect of
submissions by the appellant.
The admitted fundamental issues are issues of fact, and the law is settled that all
issues of facts are for the trial judge to determine. Counsel cited Doku v Doku &
Another [1992-93] GBR 367, CA, and Bisi v Tabiri alias Asare [1987-88] 1 GLR
360, to buttress his point. The facts in Doku v Doku (supra) were that each party
claimed sole ownership of the property in dispute, but at the end of the trial, the
trial judge made definite findings of facts and upheld the claim by the 2nd
defendant on his counterclaim for a declaration of title. The plaintiff appealed
against the judgment on several grounds a summary of which was that the
judgment was against the weight of evidence on record. Dismissing the appeal,
the Court of Appeal stated the settled principles governing appeals on such
grounds to be that:
14