Fka Company Ltd Vrs Sarkodie [2008] GHASC 9 (27 October 2008)

Fka Company Ltd Vrs Sarkodie [2008] GHASC 9 (27 October 2008)

The Plaintiff’s Managing Director acquired the land by customary grant from the Weija Stool in 1980, and after incorporation, the land was properly conveyed to the Plaintiff company. The Weija Stool had already divested itself of title and could not validly grant the same land to the Defendant. The findings of the lower courts were supported by the evidence, and there was no miscarriage of justice to warrant interference.

Citation
[2008] GHASC 9
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: FKA Company Ltd; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Effah Sarkodie
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
27 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Customary Grant, Burden of Proof, Appeals, Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet
Source Language
English
Land Law Customary Law Title to Land Customary Grant Burden of Proof Appeals Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet

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

Parties

FKA Company Ltd

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Effah Sarkodie

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff had valid title to the disputed land by customary grant
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant acquired valid title from the Amanfro or Weija Stool
  3. 3 Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were against the weight of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff’s Managing Director acquired the land by customary grant from the Weija Stool in 1980, and after incorporation, the land was properly conveyed to the Plaintiff company. The Weija Stool had already divested itself of title and could not validly grant the same land to the Defendant. The findings of the lower courts were supported by the evidence, and there was no miscarriage of justice to warrant interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the trial court and Court of Appeal affirmed
  • Plaintiff’s title to the land confirmed