Ofei Vrs Asamoah and Another [2018] GHASC 23 (25 April 2018)

Ofei Vrs Asamoah and Another [2018] GHASC 23 (25 April 2018)

The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff had capacity to sue for and on behalf of her family as the land was family property, not syndicate property, and the defendants failed to specifically deny her representative capacity. The lower courts erred in dismissing her claim for want of capacity. The Court dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim and entered judgment for the plaintiff on her reliefs for declaration of title and injunction.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 23
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Evelyn Asiedu Offei; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Yaw Asamoah; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Odehye Kwaku Gyapong
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
25 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff’s appeal allowed; Court of Appeal’s finding on want of capacity reversed; judgment entered for plaintiff on reliefs 1 and 2; defendant’s counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Capacity to Sue, Family Property, Representative Actions, Counterclaim, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Land Law Customary Law Civil Procedure Capacity to Sue Family Property Representative Actions Counterclaim Burden of Proof

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

Parties

Evelyn Asiedu Offei

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Yaw Asamoah

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Odehye Kwaku Gyapong

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff had capacity to institute the action for and on behalf of her family
  2. 2 Whether the land in dispute was family property or belonged to a syndicate
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the trial court's finding of want of capacity

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff had capacity to sue for and on behalf of her family as the land was family property, not syndicate property, and the defendants failed to specifically deny her representative capacity. The lower courts erred in dismissing her claim for want of capacity. The Court dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim and entered judgment for the plaintiff on her reliefs for declaration of title and injunction.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff’s appeal allowed; Court of Appeal’s finding on want of capacity reversed; judgment entered for plaintiff on reliefs 1 and 2; defendant’s counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration of title to the disputed land in favour of the plaintiff and her family
  • Perpetual injunction against the defendants from interfering with the land