NYAMEKYE vrs F.K.A. COMPANY (J4/29/2024) [2024] GHASC 44 (23 October 2024)

NYAMEKYE vrs F.K.A. COMPANY (J4/29/2024) [2024] GHASC 44 (23 October 2024)

The Plaintiff validly acquired the disputed land from the Weija Stool prior to the Defendant's grant; the Weija Stool could not make a subsequent grant to the Defendant due to nemo dat quod non habet; prior Supreme Court decision in Effah Sarkodie is binding and not departed from; Plaintiff's capacity to sue was not defeated; Defendant's arguments regarding government acquisition and capacity failed; appeal dismissed.

Citation
NYAMEKYE vrs F.K.A. COMPANY (J4/29/2024) [2024] GHASC 44 (23 October 2024)
Parties
Defendant/appellant/appellant: Frederick Nyamekye; Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: F.K.A. Company
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
23 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal Before Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Appeal affirmed.
Legal Topics
Customary Land Grants, Trespass, Capacity to Sue, Res Judicata, Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet, Compulsory Acquisition, Stare Decisis
Source Language
eng
Land Law Civil Procedure Customary Land Grants Trespass Capacity to Sue Res Judicata Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Compulsory Acquisition +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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederick Nyamekye

Defendant/appellant/appellant

F.K.A. Company

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal Before Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff had valid title to the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's grant from the Weija Stool was valid
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff had capacity to sue for the disputed plots

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff validly acquired the disputed land from the Weija Stool prior to the Defendant's grant; the Weija Stool could not make a subsequent grant to the Defendant due to nemo dat quod non habet; prior Supreme Court decision in Effah Sarkodie is binding and not departed from; Plaintiff's capacity to sue was not defeated; Defendant's arguments regarding government acquisition and capacity failed; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Appeal affirmed.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Plaintiff current market price for three plots within six months after approval of valuation report; failing which Plaintiff granted recovery of possession and order to demolish offending structures at Defendant's cost.
  • Director of Surveys to demarcate and survey three plots; Land Valuation Division to value plots; costs of demarcation and valuation to be borne by Plaintiff and surcharged against Defendant.