Fosu-twum and Another Vrs Nortey [2018] GHASC 21 (21 March 2018)

Fosu-twum and Another Vrs Nortey [2018] GHASC 21 (21 March 2018)

The defendant was reckless in proceeding with construction after being warned by the plaintiff and in the face of evidence of plaintiff's possession. He was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and is disentitled to protection under Act 2. The plaintiffs had a better title to the land, and the trial judge erred in applying Act 2 to protect the defendant.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 21
Parties
1st Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Thomas Fosu-Twum; 2nd Plaintiff: Dr. T. A. Osae; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Theophilus Nortey
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
21 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Competing Land Titles, Protection of Purchasers, Laches and Acquiescence, Bona Fide Purchaser, Possession, Application of Land Development (protection of Purchasers) Act 2 of 1960
Source Language
English
Land Law Competing Land Titles Protection of Purchasers Laches and Acquiescence Bona Fide Purchaser Possession Application of Land Development (protection of Purchasers) Act 2 of 1960

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Fosu-Twum

1st Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Dr. T. A. Osae

2nd Plaintiff

Theophilus Nortey

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice
  2. 2 Whether the Land Development (Protection of Purchasers) Act 2 of 1960 applies to protect the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs had a better title to the disputed land

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was reckless in proceeding with construction after being warned by the plaintiff and in the face of evidence of plaintiff's possession. He was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and is disentitled to protection under Act 2. The plaintiffs had a better title to the land, and the trial judge erred in applying Act 2 to protect the defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' title to the disputed land affirmed
  • Reliefs sought by plaintiffs to be granted