AKOSUA DUFIE VRS.pdf - Judicial Training Institute

family. He therefore had the capacity to sue and the judgment of the court of
Appeal in that respect ought not to be disturbed.
What weight then ought to be put on the conflicting evidence adduced
by both parties?
In the case of Yorkwa v Duah [1992-93] GBLR 278, CA, it was held that
whenever there was in existence a written agreement and conflicting
oral evidence over a transaction, the practice in the Court was to lean
favourably towards the documentary evidence, especially if it was
authentic and the oral evidence conflicting. See also Nsiah v Atuahene,
[1992-93] GBLR 897 C.A
It is interesting to note that in an action for a declaration of title to land, all the
Plaintiffs were able to produce in support of their claim was a utility receipt
dated January 1994 especially also as the burden of proof and persuasion rested
firmly on them.
The Defendants on the other hand have been able to produce enough
compelling evidence to support their claim that the properties were the self
acquired properties of the deceased. The Plaintiff claimed that the building was
completed in 1955 whereas the Defendant tendered in Exh 4 dated 9-5-58 which
was a receipt for the preparation of permit to develop Plot No 11 Block 24 which
is the property in dispute.
Other pieces of evidence which go to confirm that the deceased exercised overt
acts of ownership more than the Plaintiffs were able to prove, are the following;
1. It was not disputed that the deceased exercised overt acts of ownership
over the properties without challenge from either the 1 st or 2 nd Plaintiff.
He rented out the property to tenants and was never once called to
account for the proceeds of the rent.
2. He paid all the ground rent and property rates by himself without any help
from anyone. All these acts go to support the assertion of the Defendants
30