Amoako Vrs Osei [2016] GHASC 61 (1 June 2016)

Amoako Vrs Osei [2016] GHASC 61 (1 June 2016)

The respondent failed to prove joint ownership of the business and properties; the evidence and documents supported the appellant's sole ownership. The findings of the lower courts were not supported by the record and were inconsistent with documentary evidence. The appellant's counterclaim for recovery of possession and eviction was granted.

Citation
[2016] GHASC 61
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Emmanuel Osei Amoako; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Standford Edward Osei (substituted by Bridget Osei Lartey & Kofi Asare)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
1 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; lower court decisions reversed; counterclaim granted.
Legal Topics
Joint Ownership, Proof of Ownership, Appeals, Evidence, Family Property Disputes
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Joint Ownership Proof of Ownership Appeals Evidence Family Property 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmanuel Osei Amoako

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Standford Edward Osei (substituted by Bridget Osei Lartey & Kofi Asare)

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was a student at Accra Polytechnic at the time he joined the appellant in business
  2. 2 Whether the appellant persuaded the respondent to stop schooling to assist in the business
  3. 3 Whether the parties established a joint business

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to prove joint ownership of the business and properties; the evidence and documents supported the appellant's sole ownership. The findings of the lower courts were not supported by the record and were inconsistent with documentary evidence. The appellant's counterclaim for recovery of possession and eviction was granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; lower court decisions reversed; counterclaim granted.

Orders

  • Respondent to vacate the portion of the Russia house he occupies and make it available for the appellant’s wife and children.