Republic Vrs High Court, Ho Ex-parte: Nana Diawuo Bediako Ii Omanhene Of Pai Traditional Area Omanhene’s Palace Pai Katanga, Krachi East District Nana Adomako Mensah Stool Father Of The Omanhene Stool Pai Traditional Area, Pai Katanga [2011] GHASC 15 (3 March 2011)

Republic Vrs High Court, Ho Ex-parte: Nana Diawuo Bediako Ii Omanhene Of Pai Traditional Area Omanhene’s Palace Pai Katanga, Krachi East District Nana Adomako Mensah Stool Father Of The Omanhene Stool Pai Traditional Area, Pai Katanga [2011] GHASC 15 (3 March 2011)

The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs led credible and convincing evidence to prove title to the disputed land, that the defendant's case was inconsistent and unsupported, and that the lower courts properly evaluated the evidence and applied the law. The plaintiffs had capacity to sue, and the defendant committed acts of trespass. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial and appellate courts were not perverse and were affirmed.

Citation
[2011] GHASC 15
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Mrs Christiana Edith Agyakwa Aboa; Defendant/appellant: Major Keelson (Rtd); Plaintiff/respondent: Okyeame Yima; Plaintiff/respondent: Teye Timothy Doku
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
3 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Trespass, Recovery of Possession, Injunction, Burden of Proof, Capacity to Sue
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Trespass Recovery of Possession Injunction Burden of Proof Capacity to Sue

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Christiana Edith Agyakwa Aboa

Plaintiff/respondent

Major Keelson (Rtd)

Defendant/appellant

Okyeame Yima

Plaintiff/respondent

Teye Timothy Doku

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs proved title to the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs had capacity to sue
  3. 3 Whether the defendant trespassed on the plaintiffs' land

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs led credible and convincing evidence to prove title to the disputed land, that the defendant's case was inconsistent and unsupported, and that the lower courts properly evaluated the evidence and applied the law. The plaintiffs had capacity to sue, and the defendant committed acts of trespass. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial and appellate courts were not perverse and were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 3rd April 2008 affirmed
  • Judgment of the High Court dated 21st January 2003 affirmed