Prah Vrs Akotsia & Another [2022] GHADC 321 (21 October 2022)

Prah Vrs Akotsia & Another [2022] GHADC 321 (21 October 2022)

Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove defendants caused damage to his sea defence wall or trees or that he suffered loss valued at Ghc100,000.00. Plaintiff also constructed the sea defence wall without lawful authority, in contravention of local by-laws, and cannot benefit from his own illegality.

Citation
[2022] GHADC 321
Parties
Plaintiff: Azulo Prah; Defendant: Nana Akotsia; Defendant: Egya Awortwe
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
21 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
plaintiff's suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Damages, Injunction, Public Trust Doctrine, Local Government by Laws
Source Language
English
Property Law Environmental Law Tort Law Nuisance Damages Injunction Public Trust Doctrine Local Government by Laws

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Azulo Prah

Plaintiff

Nana Akotsia

Defendant

Egya Awortwe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants tied their canoes to the trees and sea defence wall at the beach at the frontage of plaintiff’s premises
  2. 2 Whether defendants caused damage to the plaintiff’s sea defence wall or trees
  3. 3 Whether the damage caused is valued at Ghc100,000.00

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove defendants caused damage to his sea defence wall or trees or that he suffered loss valued at Ghc100,000.00. Plaintiff also constructed the sea defence wall without lawful authority, in contravention of local by-laws, and cannot benefit from his own illegality.

Court Disposition

plaintiff's suit dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff’s action dismissed in its entirety
  • Defendants awarded costs against plaintiff in the sum of GH¢3,000