Tetteh and Another Vrs Hayford [2012] GHASC 12 (22 February 2012)

Tetteh and Another Vrs Hayford [2012] GHASC 12 (22 February 2012)

The plaintiff failed to prove the identity of the land she claimed, and evidence showed her land was outside the disputed area. The Asere Stool had already granted the disputed land to the defendant's predecessor, so any subsequent grant to the plaintiff was null and void under the nemo dat quod non habet principle. The Court of Appeal was correct in overturning the High Court's decision.

Citation
[2012] GHASC 12
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Salomey Shorme Tetteh; Co Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Nii Amon Tafo; Defendants/appellants/respondents: Mary Korkor Hayford (substituted by Stella Larbi & Comfort Decker)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
22 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Declaratory Relief, Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet, Burden of Proof, Survey Evidence
Source Language
English
Land Law Title to Land Declaratory Relief Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Burden of Proof Survey 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Salomey Shorme Tetteh

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Nii Amon Tafo

Co Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Mary Korkor Hayford (substituted by Stella Larbi & Comfort Decker)

Defendants/appellants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff established the identity of the land in dispute to warrant a declaration in her favour
  2. 2 Whether the principle of nemo dat quod non habet applies to the competing claims
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the High Court decision

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove the identity of the land she claimed, and evidence showed her land was outside the disputed area. The Asere Stool had already granted the disputed land to the defendant's predecessor, so any subsequent grant to the plaintiff was null and void under the nemo dat quod non habet principle. The Court of Appeal was correct in overturning the High Court's decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in its entirety
  • Court of Appeal judgment of 22nd July, 2010 affirmed except for deletion of declaration of defendants as indisputable owners