LOMOTEY & ANOR VRS RICHARDSON & 3 ORS (J7/21/2022) [2023] GHASC 101 (17 January 2023)

LOMOTEY & ANOR VRS RICHARDSON & 3 ORS (J7/21/2022) [2023] GHASC 101 (17 January 2023)

The majority held that the Applicants failed to establish exceptional circumstances resulting in a miscarriage of justice as required for review under Article 133 and Rule 54(a) of C.I. 16. Even if there was an error regarding the Co-Defendant's capacity, it did not occasion a miscarriage of justice because the evidence and title would have been resolved in favor of the Numo Kofi Anum family regardless. The Supreme Court was not strictly bound by its previous decision in the Tesa case and was entitled to depart for stated reasons. The Applicants' claims for possessory interests and protection under limitation and equity were not properly pleaded or established. Allegations of fraud were...

Citation
[2023] GHASC 101
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent/applicant: Michael Odai Lomotey; Plaintiff/appellant/respondent/applicant: Ebenezer Otu Makpoi; Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent: Kwow Richardson; Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent: Akwasi Prempeh; Defendant: Lands Commission; Co Defendant/respondent: Frederick Shamo Kwei
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
17 January 2023
Case Number
J7/21/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (review of Supreme Court Judgment) / Supreme Court Application for Review
Outcome
Application for review dismissed by majority (4:3); costs awarded to Respondent.
Legal Topics
Capacity to Sue, Review Jurisdiction, Limitation of Actions, Laches and Acquiescence, Fraud on the Court, Possessory Interests, Stare Decisis
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Equity Capacity to Sue Review Jurisdiction Limitation of Actions Laches and Acquiescence Fraud on the Court +2 more

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Odai Lomotey

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent/applicant

Ebenezer Otu Makpoi

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent/applicant

Kwow Richardson

Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent

Akwasi Prempeh

Defendant/respondent/appellant/respondent

Lands Commission

Defendant

Frederick Shamo Kwei

Co Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (review of Supreme Court Judgment) / Supreme Court Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants established exceptional circumstances resulting in a miscarriage of justice to warrant review under Article 133 and Rule 54(a) of C.I. 16
  2. 2 Whether the Co-Defendant had capacity to participate and prosecute a counterclaim on behalf of the Numo Kofi Anum family
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court was bound by its previous decision in the Tesa case regarding capacity

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the Applicants failed to establish exceptional circumstances resulting in a miscarriage of justice as required for review under Article 133 and Rule 54(a) of C.I. 16. Even if there was an error regarding the Co-Defendant's capacity, it did not occasion a miscarriage of justice because the evidence and title would have been resolved in favor of the Numo Kofi Anum family regardless. The Supreme Court was not strictly bound by its previous decision in the Tesa case and was entitled to depart for stated reasons. The Applicants' claims for possessory interests and protection under limitation and equity were not properly pleaded or established. Allegations of fraud were...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed by majority (4:3); costs awarded to Respondent.

Orders

  • Application for review is dismissed.
  • Applicants to pay costs of GH¢ 15,000 to the Respondent.