Boahen Vrs Golden Age Company [2021] GHASC 142 (29 July 2021)

Boahen Vrs Golden Age Company [2021] GHASC 142 (29 July 2021)

The Supreme Court found that the disputed land is not covered by the Wenchi High Court judgment relied on by the appellant. The respondent proved its title to the land through registered documents and possession, while the appellant failed to establish that the Wenchi judgment affected the disputed plot. The doctrine of estoppel per res judicata was inapplicable as the subject matter and parties were not the same. The findings of the two lower courts were supported by the evidence, and there was no miscarriage of justice.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 142
Parties
1st Defendant/appellant/appellant: Nana Obiri Boahen; Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Golden Age Company
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
29 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Estoppel Per Res Judicata, Proof of Title, Appeals, Default Judgment
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Estoppel Per Res Judicata Proof of Title Appeals Default Judgment

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nana Obiri Boahen

1st Defendant/appellant/appellant

Golden Age Company

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disputed plot forms part of the land described in the Wenchi High Court judgment relied on by the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of estoppel per res judicata applies to bar the respondent's claim
  3. 3 Whether the findings of the two lower courts were against the weight of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the disputed land is not covered by the Wenchi High Court judgment relied on by the appellant. The respondent proved its title to the land through registered documents and possession, while the appellant failed to establish that the Wenchi judgment affected the disputed plot. The doctrine of estoppel per res judicata was inapplicable as the subject matter and parties were not the same. The findings of the two lower courts were supported by the evidence, and there was no miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal and High Court affirmed
  • All reliefs granted to the respondent in the writ of summons stand