Chantey Vrs Kweinor [2020] GHASC 19 (20 May 2020)

Chantey Vrs Kweinor [2020] GHASC 19 (20 May 2020)

The appellant is estopped per rem judicatam from relitigating title to the Terkpenya lands, as the issue was conclusively determined against his family in previous cases, including Ameoda v Pordier and Kweinor Tei Kwabla Forzi v Nene Kwaku Darpoh & 2 Others. The identity of the land was not in dispute, and the lower courts did not err in their findings.

Citation
[2020] GHASC 19
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Anyetey Chantey; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Tei Kwablah Kweinor
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
20 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Estoppel Per Rem Judicatam, Title to Land, Capacity to Sue, Counterclaim, Identity of Land
Source Language
English
Land Law Estoppel Per Rem Judicatam Title to Land Capacity to Sue Counterclaim Identity of Land

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anyetey Chantey

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Tei Kwablah Kweinor

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the identity of the disputed land was in issue
  2. 2 Whether the judgment in Ameoda v Pordier and Ameoda v Forzi & Ors operates as estoppel per rem judicatam against the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the judgment was against the weight of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant is estopped per rem judicatam from relitigating title to the Terkpenya lands, as the issue was conclusively determined against his family in previous cases, including Ameoda v Pordier and Kweinor Tei Kwabla Forzi v Nene Kwaku Darpoh & 2 Others. The identity of the land was not in dispute, and the lower courts did not err in their findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the two lower courts affirmed
  • Appellant's appeal dismissed as having no merits