Asema Substituted By Eduafo Vrs Akwa Iii and Others [2021] GHASC 87 (21 July 2021)

Asema Substituted By Eduafo Vrs Akwa Iii and Others [2021] GHASC 87 (21 July 2021)

The Supreme Court held that while the Respondent had a valid usufructuary interest in the disputed lands, the Court of Appeal erred in granting a perpetual injunction against the Appellant (allodial owner), as such an order was inconsistent with the legal relationship between allodial and usufructuary interests. The order of perpetual injunction was set aside, but the recognition of the Respondent's possessory rights was affirmed.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 87
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Ebusuapanyin Kweku Asema (substituted for Ebusuapanyin Kweku Eduafo, deceased); Defendant/respondent/appellant: Nana Akwa III
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
21 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal, Which Affirmed in Part the High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Allodial Title, Usufructuary Interest, Perpetual Injunction, Acquiescence, Possession, Customary Land Tenure
Source Language
English
Land Law Customary Law Allodial Title Usufructuary Interest Perpetual Injunction Acquiescence Possession Customary Land Tenure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ebusuapanyin Kweku Asema (substituted for Ebusuapanyin Kweku Eduafo, deceased)

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Nana Akwa III

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal, Which Affirmed in Part the High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting a perpetual injunction against the allodial owner while affirming his title
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent had a determinable, usufructuary or possessory title subject to the Appellant's allodial title
  3. 3 Whether the judgment was against the weight of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that while the Respondent had a valid usufructuary interest in the disputed lands, the Court of Appeal erred in granting a perpetual injunction against the Appellant (allodial owner), as such an order was inconsistent with the legal relationship between allodial and usufructuary interests. The order of perpetual injunction was set aside, but the recognition of the Respondent's possessory rights was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Order of perpetual injunction against the Appellant, his servants, agents and workmen is set aside
  • Recognition of Respondent's usufructuary/possessory interest affirmed