QUAYE VRS POKU (J4/15/2022) [2024] GHASC 65 (18 December 2024)

QUAYE VRS POKU (J4/15/2022) [2024] GHASC 65 (18 December 2024)

The Supreme Court held that the Defendant could not rely on the defence of limitation because it was not specifically pleaded as required by procedural rules, and that the trial court erred in dismissing the Plaintiff's claim based on capacity and limitation. The Court of Appeal's decision to set aside the trial court's judgment and grant reliefs to the Plaintiff was affirmed.

Citation
QUAYE VRS POKU (J4/15/2022) [2024] GHASC 65 (18 December 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Numo Alfred Quaye (substituted by Numo Kingsley Alex Nee Gberbei Quaye); Defendant/respondent/appellant: Edusei Poku (substituted by Veronica Edusei Poku)
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
18 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Limitation of Actions, Pleadings, Estoppel, Customary Law, Judicial Notice
Source Language
eng
Land Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Limitation of Actions Pleadings Estoppel Customary Law Judicial Notice

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

Parties

Numo Alfred Quaye (substituted by Numo Kingsley Alex Nee Gberbei Quaye)

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Edusei Poku (substituted by Veronica Edusei Poku)

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff had capacity to sue as head and lawful representative of the Ayiku Gberbi Family
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant could rely on the defence of limitation without specifically pleading it
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the Plaintiff's claim and granting title to the Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Defendant could not rely on the defence of limitation because it was not specifically pleaded as required by procedural rules, and that the trial court erred in dismissing the Plaintiff's claim based on capacity and limitation. The Court of Appeal's decision to set aside the trial court's judgment and grant reliefs to the Plaintiff was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 29th April 2020 affirmed in favour of Plaintiff on all reliefs except damages for trespass, which was dismissed.
  • Defendant's appeal dismissed in its entirety.