Amoah Vi Vrs Okine and Others [2014] GHASC 122 (15 January 2014)

Amoah Vi Vrs Okine and Others [2014] GHASC 122 (15 January 2014)

The Supreme Court held that the real dispute was a boundary dispute, not a claim for title to the entire land. The Plaintiff sufficiently identified the land in dispute through pleadings, site plans, and unchallenged evidence. The Court of Appeal was correct in not slavishly applying the requirement for proof of all boundaries and in not treating the statutory declaration as conclusive evidence of title. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal’s decision affirmed.

Citation
[2014] GHASC 122
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Nii Tackie Amoah VI; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Nii Armah Okine; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Numo Kankam; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Nii Noi Morton; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Jonah Yaw Ayitey; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Lands Commission
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
15 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Boundary Dispute, Trespass, Injunction, Statutory Declarations, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Declaration of Title Boundary Dispute Trespass Injunction Statutory Declarations Burden of Proof

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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nii Tackie Amoah VI

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Nii Armah Okine

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Numo Kankam

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Nii Noi Morton

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Jonah Yaw Ayitey

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Lands Commission

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff distinctly established the identity of the land claimed
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating the dispute as a boundary dispute rather than a claim for declaration of title
  3. 3 Whether a statutory declaration is conclusive evidence of title to land

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the real dispute was a boundary dispute, not a claim for title to the entire land. The Plaintiff sufficiently identified the land in dispute through pleadings, site plans, and unchallenged evidence. The Court of Appeal was correct in not slavishly applying the requirement for proof of all boundaries and in not treating the statutory declaration as conclusive evidence of title. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal’s decision affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed.