Stool and Others Vrs Stool [2017] GHASC 28 (31 May 2017)

Stool and Others Vrs Stool [2017] GHASC 28 (31 May 2017)

Non-compliance with the eight-month period in section 3(2) of Act 587 does not render the proceedings or judgment a nullity; the High Court properly continued and concluded the case. The respondent proved a better claim to the disputed land on the balance of probabilities, and there is no basis to disturb the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Citation
[2017] GHASC 28
Parties
2nd Claimant/appellant/appellant: Abadwum Stool; 3rd Claimant/appellant/appellant: Edubiase Stool; 4th Claimant/appellant/appellant: Benkum & Adonten Stools; 1st Claimant/respondent/respondent: Akrokerri Stool
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
31 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Stool Land Boundary Disputes, Statutory Interpretation, Appeals, Limitation of Actions
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Stool Land Boundary Disputes Statutory Interpretation Appeals Limitation of Actions

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abadwum Stool

2nd Claimant/appellant/appellant

Edubiase Stool

3rd Claimant/appellant/appellant

Benkum & Adonten Stools

4th Claimant/appellant/appellant

Akrokerri Stool

1st Claimant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court judgment was a nullity for being delivered after the statutory eight-month period under section 3(2) of Act 587
  2. 2 Whether the judgment was against the weight of the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Non-compliance with the eight-month period in section 3(2) of Act 587 does not render the proceedings or judgment a nullity; the High Court properly continued and concluded the case. The respondent proved a better claim to the disputed land on the balance of probabilities, and there is no basis to disturb the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court and Court of Appeal affirmed
  • No merits found in the appeal