Assi Vrs Attorney General [2016] GHASC 21 (9 November 2016)

Assi Vrs Attorney General [2016] GHASC 21 (9 November 2016)

The plaintiff's action was statute barred as the limitation period began in 1991 when Gold Coast Motors took adverse possession of Plot No. 2. The plaintiff was aware of the occupation but failed to act within twelve years as required by the Limitation Act, 1972 (NRCD 54). The 5th Defendant acquired title by adverse possession and the plaintiff's interest was extinguished.

Citation
[2016] GHASC 21
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Jean Hanna Assi; 1st Defendant/respondent: Attorney General; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Executive Secretary, Divestiture Implementation Committee; 3rd Defendant/respondent: Executive Secretary, Confiscated Assets Committee; 4th Defendant/respondent: Executive Secretary, Lands Commission; 5th Defendant/appellant/respondent: Poly Products Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
9 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Confiscation of Property, Title to Land
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Confiscation of Property Title to Land

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean Hanna Assi

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Attorney General

1st Defendant/respondent

Executive Secretary, Divestiture Implementation Committee

2nd Defendant/respondent

Executive Secretary, Confiscated Assets Committee

3rd Defendant/respondent

Executive Secretary, Lands Commission

4th Defendant/respondent

Poly Products Limited

5th Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's action was statute barred under the Limitation Act, 1972 (NRCD 54)
  2. 2 Whether Gold Coast Motors and the 5th Defendant were adverse possessors of Plot No. 2
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was under a disability preventing the limitation period from running

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's action was statute barred as the limitation period began in 1991 when Gold Coast Motors took adverse possession of Plot No. 2. The plaintiff was aware of the occupation but failed to act within twelve years as required by the Limitation Act, 1972 (NRCD 54). The 5th Defendant acquired title by adverse possession and the plaintiff's interest was extinguished.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal decision affirmed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's appeal is dismissed
  • Court of Appeal judgment dated 6th February 2014 is affirmed