Mfum Farms and Feedmill Ltd Vrs Gyamfua [2018] GHASC 69 (24 October 2018)

Mfum Farms and Feedmill Ltd Vrs Gyamfua [2018] GHASC 69 (24 October 2018)

The Plaintiff failed to establish title to the disputed land on a balance of probabilities due to inconsistencies, lack of credible documentation, and evidence that the Defendant had prior possession and payment history dating back to 1971. The lower courts erred in relying on the Plaintiff's lease and site plan, which were found to be unauthenticated and of dubious origin. The Defendant's long-standing possession and documentary evidence outweighed the Plaintiff's claims.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 69
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Mfum Farms and Feedmill Ltd; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Madam Agnes Gyamfua (substituted by Mrs Lovia Opoku Bandoh)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
24 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgments of High Court and Court of Appeal set aside; judgment entered for Defendant.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Trespass, Limitation of Actions, Evidence, Survey Plans, Doctrine of Priorities
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Trespass Limitation of Actions Evidence Survey Plans Doctrine of Priorities

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mfum Farms and Feedmill Ltd

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Madam Agnes Gyamfua (substituted by Mrs Lovia Opoku Bandoh)

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff established title to the disputed land on a balance of probabilities
  2. 2 Whether the lower courts erred in relying on the Plaintiff's lease and site plan
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's long possession and payment history established superior title

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to establish title to the disputed land on a balance of probabilities due to inconsistencies, lack of credible documentation, and evidence that the Defendant had prior possession and payment history dating back to 1971. The lower courts erred in relying on the Plaintiff's lease and site plan, which were found to be unauthenticated and of dubious origin. The Defendant's long-standing possession and documentary evidence outweighed the Plaintiff's claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgments of High Court and Court of Appeal set aside; judgment entered for Defendant.

Orders

  • Judgments of High Court (10th May 2006) and Court of Appeal (16th April 2015) set aside
  • Plaintiff's claims dismissed