Sakyiama Vrs Tema Development Corporation [2016] GHASC 58 (6 June 2016)

Sakyiama Vrs Tema Development Corporation [2016] GHASC 58 (6 June 2016)

The Supreme Court held that the allocation of 1.10 acres of residential land to the appellant, free of charge, constituted more than adequate compensation for the loss of farming rights over the 5 acres, and that the appellant was not entitled to further compensation. The Court found that the valuation report relied on by the High Court was flawed, as it included the market value of land not owned by the appellant and was based on values as at 2005 instead of 1996. The Court further held that the parol evidence rule did not preclude oral evidence of compensation, as the offer letters were not intended as the final and complete agreements between the parties.

Citation
[2016] GHASC 58
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: A. R. Duodu-Sakyiama; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Tema Development Corporation
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
6 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Compensation for Loss of Land, Breach of Contract, Parol Evidence Rule, Interpretation of Written Agreements, Public Land Management, Conflict of Interest
Source Language
English
Land Law Contract Law Public Law Compensation for Loss of Land Breach of Contract Parol Evidence Rule Interpretation of Written Agreements Public Land Management +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. R. Duodu-Sakyiama

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Tema Development Corporation

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the allocation of 1.10 acres of residential land to the appellant constituted adequate compensation for the loss of 5 acres of agricultural land upon government re-entry
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the High Court's award of compensation based on a 2005 valuation report
  3. 3 Whether the parol evidence rule and the maxim expressum facit cessare tacitum precluded oral evidence of compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the allocation of 1.10 acres of residential land to the appellant, free of charge, constituted more than adequate compensation for the loss of farming rights over the 5 acres, and that the appellant was not entitled to further compensation. The Court found that the valuation report relied on by the High Court was flawed, as it included the market value of land not owned by the appellant and was based on values as at 2005 instead of 1996. The Court further held that the parol evidence rule did not preclude oral evidence of compensation, as the offer letters were not intended as the final and complete agreements between the parties.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.