Coleman Vrs Tripollen and Others [2018] GHASC 56 (28 November 2018)

Coleman Vrs Tripollen and Others [2018] GHASC 56 (28 November 2018)

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff established title to the land through documentary evidence and long possession, had legal capacity to sue, and that all defendants were deemed served due to their participation. The Court of Appeal was correct in reversing the High Court's perverse findings. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal judgment affirmed.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 56
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Fred Robert Coleman; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Joe Tripollen; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Mr. Boateng; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Mr. Danso; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Mr. Ebenezer; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Mr. Odonkor
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
28 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Capacity to Sue, Estoppel, Appeals, Service of Process
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Capacity to Sue Estoppel Appeals Service of Process

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fred Robert Coleman

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Joe Tripollen

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Mr. Boateng

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Mr. Danso

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Mr. Ebenezer

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Mr. Odonkor

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff established title to the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff had legal capacity to sue
  3. 3 Whether non-service of writ on some defendants was fatal

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff established title to the land through documentary evidence and long possession, had legal capacity to sue, and that all defendants were deemed served due to their participation. The Court of Appeal was correct in reversing the High Court's perverse findings. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal judgment affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's title to the land is upheld.
  • All reliefs granted by the Court of Appeal are affirmed.