Asema Vrs Nana Akwa Iii & 2 Ors [2021] GHASC 138 (21 July 2021)

Asema Vrs Nana Akwa Iii & 2 Ors [2021] GHASC 138 (21 July 2021)

The Supreme Court held that the respondent had established a usufructuary interest in the disputed lands, consistent with long possession and user rights, but the order of perpetual injunction against the appellant as allodial owner was erroneous and must be set aside. The confirmation of the respondent's usufruct did not extinguish the appellant's allodial title.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 138
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Ebusuapanyin Kweku Asema (substituted for Ebusuapanyin Kweku Eduafo, deceased); Defendant/respondent/appellant: Nana Akwa III
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
21 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Allodial Title, Usufructuary Interest, Perpetual Injunction, Acquiescence, Counterclaim
Source Language
English
Land Law Customary Law Allodial Title Usufructuary Interest Perpetual Injunction Acquiescence Counterclaim

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ebusuapanyin Kweku Asema (substituted for Ebusuapanyin Kweku Eduafo, deceased)

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Nana Akwa III

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting perpetual injunction against the allodial title owner while affirming his title
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had established a usufructuary interest in the disputed lands
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting the appellant's counterclaims

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the respondent had established a usufructuary interest in the disputed lands, consistent with long possession and user rights, but the order of perpetual injunction against the appellant as allodial owner was erroneous and must be set aside. The confirmation of the respondent's usufruct did not extinguish the appellant's allodial title.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Order of perpetual injunction against the appellant set aside
  • Confirmation of respondent's usufructuary interest affirmed