Kwabla Vrs Lands Commission and Another [2017] GHASC 14 (26 July 2017)

Kwabla Vrs Lands Commission and Another [2017] GHASC 14 (26 July 2017)

The Appellant failed to prove, on the preponderance of probabilities, that the land described as Bundase lands was vested in the State by the 1968 Instrument, that his family originally owned the land, or that the State's interest had been extinguished by adverse possession. The 1968 Instrument remained valid, and the lease to the Respondent was lawful. The Appellant's arguments regarding constitutional de-vesting were unfounded as the land remained vested in the President under the transitional provisions of the 1992 Constitution.

Citation
[2017] GHASC 14
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Nene Dokutso Tei Kwabla (Head of Tei Kwabla Family, suing for himself and on behalf of Tei Kwabla Family); 1st Defendant/respondent: Lands Commission; 2nd Defendant/respondent/respondent: Volta (Gh.) Investment Co. Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
26 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Vesting of Land, Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Trusteeship of Public Lands, Effect of Constitutional Provisions on Land, Burden of Proof in Civil Cases
Source Language
English
Land Law Constitutional Law Vesting of Land Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Trusteeship of Public Lands Effect of Constitutional Provisions on Land Burden of Proof in Civil Cases

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nene Dokutso Tei Kwabla (Head of Tei Kwabla Family, suing for himself and on behalf of Tei Kwabla Family)

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

Lands Commission

1st Defendant/respondent

Volta (Gh.) Investment Co. Ltd.

2nd Defendant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the land vested in the State by the 1968 Instrument and leased to the Respondent was Bundase lands as described by the Appellant
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant's family originally owned the land
  3. 3 Whether the State abandoned the land for over thirty years and whether the Appellant's family had been in adverse possession for that period

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant failed to prove, on the preponderance of probabilities, that the land described as Bundase lands was vested in the State by the 1968 Instrument, that his family originally owned the land, or that the State's interest had been extinguished by adverse possession. The 1968 Instrument remained valid, and the lease to the Respondent was lawful. The Appellant's arguments regarding constitutional de-vesting were unfounded as the land remained vested in the President under the transitional provisions of the 1992 Constitution.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed
  • Appellant's appeal dismissed as lacking merit