Azameti Vrs Attipoe & Anor [2023] GHASC 56 (15 March 2023)

Azameti Vrs Attipoe & Anor [2023] GHASC 56 (15 March 2023)

The Plaintiff established, on the balance of probabilities, that the disputed land forms part of the Kpeyehi family land, supported by consistent evidence from adjoining landowners and acts of possession. The Defendants failed to prove acts of possession or call boundary owners to corroborate their claim. The Court of Appeal was correct in reversing the High Court and declaring title in favour of the Plaintiff.

Citation
Azameti Vrs Attipoe & Anor [2023] GHASC 56 (15 March 2023)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Emmanuel K. Azameti; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Dingle Dordzi Attipoe; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Kwaku Nyatefe
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
15 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Declaration of Title to Land, Burden of Proof, Traditional Evidence, Acts of Possession
Source Language
eng
Land Law Civil Procedure Boundary Disputes Declaration of Title to Land Burden of Proof Traditional Evidence Acts of Possession

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmanuel K. Azameti

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Dingle Dordzi Attipoe

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Kwaku Nyatefe

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the true boundary line between the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendants’ family land?
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff or Defendants have established title to the disputed land on the balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff established, on the balance of probabilities, that the disputed land forms part of the Kpeyehi family land, supported by consistent evidence from adjoining landowners and acts of possession. The Defendants failed to prove acts of possession or call boundary owners to corroborate their claim. The Court of Appeal was correct in reversing the High Court and declaring title in favour of the Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff declared owner of the disputed land as per boundaries established in evidence.
  • Defendants' counterclaim dismissed.