Dodoo Vrs Mensah [2020] GHASC 80 (5 February 2020)

Dodoo Vrs Mensah [2020] GHASC 80 (5 February 2020)

The Supreme Court found the Plaintiff had capacity as surviving executrix and beneficiary under the Will, with probate not set aside. The Plaintiff and her predecessors demonstrated consistent, overt acts of ownership and possession over the land for over 200 years, corroborated by credible witnesses and documentary evidence. The Defendants' evidence was inconsistent and lacked credibility. The concurrent findings of fact by the High Court and Court of Appeal were supported by the record and not to be disturbed. The Defendants' appeal was unmeritorious and dismissed.

Citation
[2020] GHASC 80
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Comfort Offeibea Dodoo (substituted by Vivian Ankrah); Defendants/appellants/appellants: Nii Amartey Mensah (substituted by David Obodai & Ors.)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
5 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Appeal affirmed in its entirety.
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title to Land, Capacity to Sue as Executor/beneficiary, Trespass, Vesting Assent, Concurrent Findings of Fact, Traditional Evidence in Land Disputes
Source Language
English
Land Law Succession Law Declaration of Title to Land Capacity to Sue as Executor/beneficiary Trespass Vesting Assent Concurrent Findings of Fact Traditional Evidence in Land Disputes

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 4 Authorities cited 36 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Comfort Offeibea Dodoo (substituted by Vivian Ankrah)

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Nii Amartey Mensah (substituted by David Obodai & Ors.)

Defendants/appellants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff had capacity to institute the action as executrix and beneficiary under the Will
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title to the disputed land
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants' counterclaim should succeed

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found the Plaintiff had capacity as surviving executrix and beneficiary under the Will, with probate not set aside. The Plaintiff and her predecessors demonstrated consistent, overt acts of ownership and possession over the land for over 200 years, corroborated by credible witnesses and documentary evidence. The Defendants' evidence was inconsistent and lacked credibility. The concurrent findings of fact by the High Court and Court of Appeal were supported by the record and not to be disturbed. The Defendants' appeal was unmeritorious and dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Appeal affirmed in its entirety.

Orders

  • Plaintiff declared owner of the disputed land.
  • Damages for trespass awarded to Plaintiff.