KONJA VRS SARPONG & ANOTHER (C11\03\2022) [2024] GHAHC 217 (9 May 2024)

KONJA VRS SARPONG & ANOTHER (C11\03\2022) [2024] GHAHC 217 (9 May 2024)

The appellate court found that the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence, including the expert testimony and reports from the Town and Country Planning Office and the Plot Allocation Committee, which established that the disputed land was Plot 208 and not Plot 210. The refusal to appoint an independent surveyor or admit the building permit was within the trial court's discretion and did not affect the resolution of the core issue of land identity. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

Citation
KONJA VRS SARPONG & ANOTHER (C11\03\2022) [2024] GHAHC 217 (9 May 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Baba Konja; Defendants/respondents: Mr. & Mrs. Sarpong
Court
ghahc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
9 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Land Dispute / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the trial court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Trespass, Burden of Proof, Appellate Review, Expert Evidence
Source Language
eng
Land Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Trespass Burden of Proof Appellate Review Expert Evidence

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

Parties

Baba Konja

Plaintiff/appellant

Mr. & Mrs. Sarpong

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Land Dispute / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in its evaluation of the evidence regarding the identity and ownership of the disputed plot
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in refusing to appoint an independent licensed surveyor
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit the plaintiff's building permit as evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence, including the expert testimony and reports from the Town and Country Planning Office and the Plot Allocation Committee, which established that the disputed land was Plot 208 and not Plot 210. The refusal to appoint an independent surveyor or admit the building permit was within the trial court's discretion and did not affect the resolution of the core issue of land identity. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the trial court affirmed.

Orders

  • Costs of GH¢4,000.00 awarded to the Defendants/Respondents against the Plaintiff/Appellant.