TAKYI AND ANOTHER VRS. WIREKO AND ANOTHER (J4/05/2018) [2022] GHASC 123 (14 December 2022)

TAKYI AND ANOTHER VRS. WIREKO AND ANOTHER (J4/05/2018) [2022] GHASC 123 (14 December 2022)

The Appellants' action was statute barred, having been brought over twenty-five years after they became aware of the Respondents' adverse claim. The evidence overwhelmingly established that the transaction was a sale, not a pledge, and the Appellants and their predecessors acquiesced for decades. No error of law or fact was committed by the lower courts.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 123
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Juliana Coleman Takyi; Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Catherine Coleman; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Mrs. Grace Wireko @ Abena Mabere; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Regina Wireko
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
14 December 2022
Case Number
J4/05/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in its entirety
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Laches and Acquiescence, Title to Land, Appeals, Estoppel
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Laches and Acquiescence Title to Land Appeals Estoppel

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juliana Coleman Takyi

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

Catherine Coleman

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

Mrs. Grace Wireko @ Abena Mabere

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Regina Wireko

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the Appellants' claim to the property and upholding the Respondents' counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants' action was statute barred by limitation
  3. 3 Whether the transaction between the parties' predecessors was a sale or a pledge

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellants' action was statute barred, having been brought over twenty-five years after they became aware of the Respondents' adverse claim. The evidence overwhelmingly established that the transaction was a sale, not a pledge, and the Appellants and their predecessors acquiesced for decades. No error of law or fact was committed by the lower courts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in its entirety

Orders

  • Appellants' action dismissed as statute barred
  • Respondents' counterclaim upheld