Edith and Another Vrs Keelson and Yima and Another Vrs Keelson [2011] GHASC 14 (16 March 2011)

Edith and Another Vrs Keelson and Yima and Another Vrs Keelson [2011] GHASC 14 (16 March 2011)

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs proved their title to the disputed land by credible evidence, including documentary exhibits and witness testimony, and that the defendant failed to establish a superior claim. The lower courts correctly applied the law on burden of proof and capacity, and the principle of nemo dat quod non habet invalidated the defendant's claim based on a later purported conveyance. The appeals lacked merit and were dismissed.

Citation
[2011] GHASC 14
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Mrs Christiana Edith Agyakwa Aboa; Defendant/appellant: Major Keelson (Rtd); Plaintiff/respondent: Okyeame Yima; Plaintiff/respondent: Teye Timothy Doku
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
16 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal From Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; lower court judgments affirmed.
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title to Land, Trespass, Recovery of Possession, Perpetual Injunction, Burden of Proof, Capacity to Sue, Evidence Evaluation
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Declaration of Title to Land Trespass Recovery of Possession Perpetual Injunction Burden of Proof Capacity to Sue +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Christiana Edith Agyakwa Aboa

Plaintiff/respondent

Major Keelson (Rtd)

Defendant/appellant

Okyeame Yima

Plaintiff/respondent

Teye Timothy Doku

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal From Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs proved title to the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs had capacity to sue
  3. 3 Whether the defendant trespassed on the plaintiffs' land

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs proved their title to the disputed land by credible evidence, including documentary exhibits and witness testimony, and that the defendant failed to establish a superior claim. The lower courts correctly applied the law on burden of proof and capacity, and the principle of nemo dat quod non habet invalidated the defendant's claim based on a later purported conveyance. The appeals lacked merit and were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; lower court judgments affirmed.

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiffs in both consolidated suits affirmed
  • Declaration of title to land in favour of plaintiffs