AKOSUA DUFIE VRS.pdf - Judicial Training Institute

From the nature of the facts and issues before the court, all the evidence must
be considered dispassionately. The appellants relied heavily on the fact that
documents on the house like building plans and permits, demand notices and
receipts for payments of rents were in the name of Kwaku Poku but though in
law that, per se, was no proof of title to a property in dispute, they are not be
glossed over for they serve as strong acts of ownership which may be spokes in
a claim for declaration of title by a plaintiff.
I am bold to say that in the face of the strong challenge by the defendants on
the title to the house in dispute, it was not enough for the plaintiffs to have
relied on only the viva voce evidence by the plaintiffs no matter who how many
they are. Corroborative evidence that was likely to exist were their evidence to
be believed as true; official documents from official or public sources could have
been produced, see Majolagbe v Larbi [1959] GLR…But in this case nothing like
that came from the plaintiffs.
The respondent led no sufficient evidence to show how the second plaintiff
acquired the plot of land on which the house stood. The evidence in the
documents in his name must be matched against the totality of the evidence on
record that even if Kwaku Poku built the house, the family made contributions,
substantial or otherwise, towards the acquisition, for the store run by the PW5
and the stock in trade were sold and the proceeds or part thereof were pooled
together for the acquisition, proceeds from the farm at Siiso was utilized in
acquiring the Abompe farm.In circumstances like this the legal conclusion was
that the house at New Amakom Extension, Plot Number 11, Block 24, so
acquired are stamped with the family character, or badge was against the weight
of the evidence . The case that they were acquired by the second plaintiff was
not supported by the evidence on record as found by the trial court. The appeal
by the respondent must fail.
The sum total of grounds one and two of appeal was that the judgment of the
trial court was against the weight of evidence. It requires no authority to be cited
in support of the proposition that an appeal to this court is by way of a rehearing
and even though it is not the function of the appellate court to assess
the veracity, truthfulness or otherwise of the witnesses in a civil case, it is
incumbent on the court to take into account the testimonies and all the evidence,
documentary or oral, adduced at the trial before arriving at its decision so as to
satisfy itself that, on a preponderance of the probabilities, the conclusions of the
trial judge are reasonably or amply supported by the evidence: see Tuakwa v
Bosom [2001-2002] SCGLR 61.
Accordingly the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the findings of fact by the trial
court and grounds 1 and 2 of Appeal are both allowed.
18