Akuetteh Vrs Baah and Others [2020] GHASC 60 (25 November 2020)

Akuetteh Vrs Baah and Others [2020] GHASC 60 (25 November 2020)

The Supreme Court found no merit in the sole ground of appeal, holding that the decisions of the lower courts were supported by the evidence and that the application for super-imposition of a plan was determined. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Citation
Akuetteh Vrs Baah and Others [2020] GHASC 60 (25 November 2020)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Madam Eugenia Akuetteh; Defendants/appellants/appellants: Kofi Baah & 67 Others; Co Defendant/appellant/appellant: Onamrokor Adain Family; Co Defendant/appellant/appellant: Jonafoaco Co. Ltd.; Defendants/appellants/appellants: Ben Amoako Atta & 11 Others
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
25 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeals, Concurrent Findings, Weight of Evidence, Land Dispute
Source Language
eng
Civil Procedure Property Law Appeals Concurrent Findings Weight of Evidence Land Dispute

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madam Eugenia Akuetteh

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Kofi Baah & 67 Others

Defendants/appellants/appellants

Onamrokor Adain Family

Co Defendant/appellant/appellant

Jonafoaco Co. Ltd.

Co Defendant/appellant/appellant

Ben Amoako Atta & 11 Others

Defendants/appellants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment of the lower courts was against the weight of evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial court failed to determine an application for super-imposition of a plan on disputed land

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found no merit in the sole ground of appeal, holding that the decisions of the lower courts were supported by the evidence and that the application for super-imposition of a plan was determined. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed