Mumuni Vrs Nyamekye and Others [2017] GHASC 34 (6 April 2017)

Mumuni Vrs Nyamekye and Others [2017] GHASC 34 (6 April 2017)

The Supreme Court held that the writ for perpetual injunction was competent and substantive, that the Court of Appeal was right to reverse the trial court's decision as the tribunal order vesting the property in the 2nd defendant was made without jurisdiction, and that the indemnity provisions of the Constitution did not preclude courts from questioning the tribunal's order since it was not made in the name of the PNDC.

Citation
[2017] GHASC 34
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Alhaji Mumuni; 1st Defendant/respondent/appellant: Akua Serwaa Nyamekye; 2nd Defendant/respondent/appellant: Yaa Tenewaa; 3rd Defendant/respondent/appellant: Lands Commission, Kumasi; 4th Defendant/respondent/appellant: Registrar, Lands Commission, Kumasi; 5th Defendant/respondent/appellant: Executive Secretary, Lands Commission, Accra
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
6 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal decision affirmed; trial High Court decision set aside; plaintiff's claim allowed.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Perpetual Injunction, Jurisdiction, Effect of Tribunal Orders, Interpretation of Constitutional Indemnity Provisions
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Title to Land Perpetual Injunction Jurisdiction Effect of Tribunal Orders Interpretation of Constitutional Indemnity Provisions

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alhaji Mumuni

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Akua Serwaa Nyamekye

1st Defendant/respondent/appellant

Yaa Tenewaa

2nd Defendant/respondent/appellant

Lands Commission, Kumasi

3rd Defendant/respondent/appellant

Registrar, Lands Commission, Kumasi

4th Defendant/respondent/appellant

Executive Secretary, Lands Commission, Accra

5th Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the writ for perpetual injunction was competent and substantive
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal was right to reverse the trial court's decision on title to property
  3. 3 Whether the indemnity provisions of the 1992 Constitution preclude courts from questioning orders of Public Tribunals

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the writ for perpetual injunction was competent and substantive, that the Court of Appeal was right to reverse the trial court's decision as the tribunal order vesting the property in the 2nd defendant was made without jurisdiction, and that the indemnity provisions of the Constitution did not preclude courts from questioning the tribunal's order since it was not made in the name of the PNDC.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal decision affirmed; trial High Court decision set aside; plaintiff's claim allowed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff granted declaration of title to the disputed property.
  • Perpetual injunction granted restraining the 1st defendant from transferring the property to the 2nd defendant.