Chief Kwesi Kuma II Of Abinabina V. Chief Ko Jo Enyimadu Of Nkasawura (1947)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Claim for declaration of title—Onus of proof.

The Court of Appeal refused to disturb the trial Judge’s findings of fact. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast.

Bannerman Hyde, Blay and 011ennu for Appellant (plaintiff below). Sackeyfio for Respondent (defendant below).

The following joint judgment was delivered:

In this case the appellant asked for a declaration of title in respect of certain land.

It should by this time be more or less universally known that, in a claim of this sort, the burden of proof rests heavily on the claimant.

The learned trial Judge found that the appellant had failed signally to prove his claim and we are in agreement with him in so finding.

Objection was taken by the appellant to the use by the learned Judge of a sketch plan taken from the Judgment Book of Griffith, C.J., in a Concession Case of 1902.

It appears to us that the learned Judge of the Land Court used this sketch for the purpose of seeing how far Griffith’s, C.J., Judgment could be read as relating to places shown on the surveyor’s plan in evidence before the Land Court. We can see no objection to his so using the sketch plan.

The appeal is dismissed with costs assessed at £32.

Appeal dismissed.