Boateng Vrs Mckeown Investment Ltd [2020] GHASC 81 (5 February 2020)

Boateng Vrs Mckeown Investment Ltd [2020] GHASC 81 (5 February 2020)

The second notice of appeal filed by the defendant without leave was procedurally invalid and should have been struck out. The plaintiff was the first to purchase and register the land, and the defendant's title derived from the same grantor who had already disposed of the land. The Court of Appeal erred in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] GHASC 81
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Dora Boateng; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Mckeown Investment Ltd
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
5 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal set aside; trial Circuit Court judgment restored in favour of plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Family Land Alienation, Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet, Notice of Appeal Procedure, Double Sale of Land, Title Registration
Source Language
english
Land Law Customary Law Civil Procedure Family Land Alienation Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Notice of Appeal Procedure Double Sale of Land Title Registration

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Dora Boateng

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Mckeown Investment Ltd

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting and relying on a second notice of appeal filed without leave
  2. 2 Whether the land in dispute was validly sold to the plaintiff by Kwame Kissiedu Kwaasi
  3. 3 Whether the principle of nemo dat quod non habet applies to the facts

Ratio Decidendi

The second notice of appeal filed by the defendant without leave was procedurally invalid and should have been struck out. The plaintiff was the first to purchase and register the land, and the defendant's title derived from the same grantor who had already disposed of the land. The Court of Appeal erred in reversing the trial court's findings. The trial court's judgment in favour of the plaintiff is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal set aside; trial Circuit Court judgment restored in favour of plaintiff.

Orders

  • Second notice of appeal dated 26th January 2016 struck out.
  • Judgment of Court of Appeal set aside.