Yaw Vrs Appenteng and Another [2011] GHASC 33 (23 November 2011)

Yaw Vrs Appenteng and Another [2011] GHASC 33 (23 November 2011)

Exhibit 'A' was found to be a forged and unregistered document, as the purported lessor was deceased at the time of the oath of proof. Neither party proved valid title to the land on the balance of probabilities, as both failed to meet the evidentiary burden required for a declaration of title. The finding of perjury against PW1 was not supported by the evidence, as he did not sign the oath of proof. The respondent's counter-claim also failed for lack of sufficient proof and failure to call the grantor as a witness.

Citation
[2011] GHASC 33
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Kwadwo Sasu Bamfo; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Kwesi Sintim
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
23 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appellant's appeal partly succeeds on the issue of perjury and registration; otherwise dismissed. Respondent's counter-claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Forgery, Registration of Instruments, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Land Law Evidence Title to Land Forgery Registration of Instruments Burden of Proof

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kwadwo Sasu Bamfo

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Kwesi Sintim

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Exhibit 'A' (the lease agreement) was a forgery
  2. 2 Whether the parties proved their respective titles to the disputed land
  3. 3 Effect of non-registration of land instruments under Ghanaian law

Ratio Decidendi

Exhibit 'A' was found to be a forged and unregistered document, as the purported lessor was deceased at the time of the oath of proof. Neither party proved valid title to the land on the balance of probabilities, as both failed to meet the evidentiary burden required for a declaration of title. The finding of perjury against PW1 was not supported by the evidence, as he did not sign the oath of proof. The respondent's counter-claim also failed for lack of sufficient proof and failure to call the grantor as a witness.

Court Disposition

Appellant's appeal partly succeeds on the issue of perjury and registration; otherwise dismissed. Respondent's counter-claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Counter-claim dismissed
  • No declaration of title granted to either party