Carthy & Another Vrs Yalley [2023] GHACC 357 (6 February 2023)

Carthy & Another Vrs Yalley [2023] GHACC 357 (6 February 2023)

The court found that the late J.K.A. Carthy was a member of the Nana Kofi Amissah Nsona family, that the estate was properly distributed between the family and the deceased's children, and that the Plaintiffs had capacity to sue as family head and purchaser. The Defendant lacked capacity to defend, and the Letters...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] GHACC 357
Parties
Plaintiff: Ebusuapanyin Kofi Essel A. Carthy; Plaintiff: Ernest Cudjoe; Defendant: Amos Thomas Yalley
Court
Circuit Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
6 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Recovery of Possession, Damages for Trespass, Perpetual Injunction, Mesne Profits, Letters of Administration, Capacity to Sue and Defend, Statute of Limitations, Estoppel, Distribution of Estate
Source Language
english
Property Law Succession Law Family Law Declaration of Title Recovery of Possession Damages for Trespass Perpetual Injunction Mesne Profits +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ebusuapanyin Kofi Essel A. Carthy

Plaintiff

Ernest Cudjoe

Plaintiff

Amos Thomas Yalley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late J.K.A. Carthy was a member of the Nana Kofi Amissah Nsona family of Cape Coast
  2. 2 Whether the estate of J.K.A. Carthy was properly distributed among his family and children
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiffs had capacity to sue and the Defendant had capacity to defend

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the late J.K.A. Carthy was a member of the Nana Kofi Amissah Nsona family, that the estate was properly distributed between the family and the deceased's children, and that the Plaintiffs had capacity to sue as family head and purchaser. The Defendant lacked capacity to defend, and the Letters of Administration obtained in 1991 were valid. The action was not statute barred. The Plaintiffs proved possession and management of the property, and the Defendant's counterclaim failed. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiffs for title, possession, damages, injunction, and mesne profits.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiffs

Orders

  • Declaration of title to House No. E34/2 in favor of Plaintiffs
  • Recovery of possession of House No. E34/2 by Plaintiffs