LAMPTEY VRS. KEDE (J4/49/2022) [2022] GHASC 128 (27 July 2022)

LAMPTEY VRS. KEDE (J4/49/2022) [2022] GHASC 128 (27 July 2022)

The Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the rules on extension of time to appeal; the application was validly filed within the six-month window. The respondent failed to prove legal title but established possessory title. The appellant was responsible for the demolition of the respondent's building. Special damages were not properly particularized; general damages are awarded instead.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 128
Parties
Defendant/appellant/appellant: Nii Lantei Lamptey; Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Shadrach Sossou Kede
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
27 July 2022
Case Number
J4/49/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Possessory Title, Special Damages, Appeal Timelines, Demolition of Property
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Evidence Burden of Proof Possessory Title Special Damages Appeal Timelines Demolition of Property

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

Parties

Nii Lantei Lamptey

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Shadrach Sossou Kede

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the appeal as incompetent for being filed out of time
  2. 2 Whether the respondent proved legal or possessory title to the disputed land
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was responsible for the demolition of respondent's building

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the rules on extension of time to appeal; the application was validly filed within the six-month window. The respondent failed to prove legal title but established possessory title. The appellant was responsible for the demolition of the respondent's building. Special damages were not properly particularized; general damages are awarded instead.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Court of Appeal judgment dated 28th July 2021 set aside
  • Appeal against High Court judgment restored