Agyarkwa Vrs Folagin & 4 Ors [2020] GHASC 118 (11 March 2020)

Agyarkwa Vrs Folagin & 4 Ors [2020] GHASC 118 (11 March 2020)

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to set aside its judgment after execution had ended and outside the mandatory time limit. The order of 22 July 2011 and all subsequent proceedings are null and void. The proper procedure for any aggrieved party was to institute a fresh action, not to apply in the same case after execution.

Citation
Agyarkwa Vrs Folagin & 4 Ors [2020] GHASC 118 (11 March 2020)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/cross Appellant: Opanin E. K. Agyarkwa (substituted by Opanin Yaw Asare, suing as head and lawful representative of Tete Pa Ogya Agona Family of Adamorobe, near Aburi); Defendant/respondent/respondent: James Folagin; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Esther Folagin; Defendant/respondent/respondent: William Folagin; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Madam Abena Kumah; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Bortefio Mensah
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
11 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order setting aside judgment and all subsequent proceedings declared null and void; original High Court judgment and orders restored.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgments, Execution of Judgments, Functus Officio, Natural Justice, Default Judgment, Time Limits for Applications
Source Language
eng
Civil Procedure Land Law Setting Aside Judgments Execution of Judgments Functus Officio Natural Justice Default Judgment Time Limits for Applications

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

Parties

Opanin E. K. Agyarkwa (substituted by Opanin Yaw Asare, suing as head and lawful representative of Tete Pa Ogya Agona Family of Adamorobe, near Aburi)

Plaintiff/appellant/cross Appellant

James Folagin

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Esther Folagin

Defendant/respondent/respondent

William Folagin

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Madam Abena Kumah

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Bortefio Mensah

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court could lawfully set aside its judgment more than one year after judgment and after execution had ended in the same case
  2. 2 Whether subsequent proceedings after execution are valid

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to set aside its judgment after execution had ended and outside the mandatory time limit. The order of 22 July 2011 and all subsequent proceedings are null and void. The proper procedure for any aggrieved party was to institute a fresh action, not to apply in the same case after execution.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order setting aside judgment and all subsequent proceedings declared null and void; original High Court judgment and orders restored.

Orders

  • Set aside the High Court order dated 22nd July 2011 which purported to set aside the judgment of 8th June 2010.
  • Set aside all subsequent proceedings including the trial before Elizabeth Ankumah, J and her judgment dated 17th February 2015, and the Court of Appeal judgment dated 23rd May 2018.