The Assemblies Of God Church Of Ghana and Another Vrs Kwadwo Osei Of Kwasi [2015] GHASC 104 (19 November 2015)

The Assemblies Of God Church Of Ghana and Another Vrs Kwadwo Osei Of Kwasi [2015] GHASC 104 (19 November 2015)

The concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal, that Drobohene did not prove allodial title and that Japekrom was the original occupant and owner, are supported by both fact and law. Colonial administrative acts did not confer customary land rights.

Citation
[2015] GHASC 104
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: The Assemblies of God Church of Ghana (per Rev. Peter Atta) Drobo; Co Plaintiff/appellant: Drobo Traditional Council; Defendant/respondent: Kwadwo Osei of Kwasi Buorkrom Nana Ampoa Abeng Kyeremeh
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
19 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Allodial Title, Customary Land Ownership, Colonial Administrative Acts, Chieftaincy Recognition
Source Language
English
Land Law Customary Law Chieftaincy Law Allodial Title Customary Land Ownership Colonial Administrative Acts Chieftaincy Recognition

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Assemblies of God Church of Ghana (per Rev. Peter Atta) Drobo

Plaintiff/appellant

Drobo Traditional Council

Co Plaintiff/appellant

Kwadwo Osei of Kwasi Buorkrom Nana Ampoa Abeng Kyeremeh

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Drobohene or Japekromhene has allodial title to the disputed land
  2. 2 Effect of colonial administrative acts on customary land rights

Ratio Decidendi

The concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal, that Drobohene did not prove allodial title and that Japekrom was the original occupant and owner, are supported by both fact and law. Colonial administrative acts did not confer customary land rights.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed