Subunor Vrs Kwao and Another [2019] GHASC 20 (27 March 2019)

Subunor Vrs Kwao and Another [2019] GHASC 20 (27 March 2019)

The plaintiff had capacity to sue due to the head of family's incapacity and the threat to family property. Both parties described and claimed the same land, so identity was not in dispute. The grant of possessory rights to the plaintiff's family was proper based on long, undisturbed possession, but title vested in the defendants' family. The award of damages for trespass was justified as the defendants encroached on land in the plaintiff's family's possession.

Citation
[2019] GHASC 20
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Subunor Agorvor (suing on his behalf and on behalf of the Agorvor Family of Tamatoku); Defendant/appellant/appellant: Mr. J. K. Kwao; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Aaron Narh Achia
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
27 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Land Dispute / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Capacity to Sue, Declaration of Title, Possessory Rights, Trespass, Counterclaim, Identity of Land, Damages
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Capacity to Sue Declaration of Title Possessory Rights Trespass Counterclaim Identity of Land +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Subunor Agorvor (suing on his behalf and on behalf of the Agorvor Family of Tamatoku)

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Mr. J. K. Kwao

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Aaron Narh Achia

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Land Dispute / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff had capacity to sue on behalf of the family
  2. 2 Whether the identity of the disputed land was sufficiently established
  3. 3 Whether the grant of possessory rights to the plaintiff's family was proper

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had capacity to sue due to the head of family's incapacity and the threat to family property. Both parties described and claimed the same land, so identity was not in dispute. The grant of possessory rights to the plaintiff's family was proper based on long, undisturbed possession, but title vested in the defendants' family. The award of damages for trespass was justified as the defendants encroached on land in the plaintiff's family's possession.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's family retains possessory rights over the disputed land.
  • Defendants' family declared owners of the land, subject to non-interference with plaintiff's possessory rights.