Dadazie Ii Vrs Arthur and Others [2017] GHASC 4 (26 January 2017)

Dadazie Ii Vrs Arthur and Others [2017] GHASC 4 (26 January 2017)

The Supreme Court held that the previous judgments did not describe or identify the boundaries of Upper Shama Junction lands, and the parties were not the same. Therefore, the judgments could not operate as res judicata. The trial High Court and Court of Appeal erred in finding for the respondent. The appeal was allowed and the judgments below set aside.

Citation
[2017] GHASC 4
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Nana Brafo Dadazie II; Defendant/appellant: John King Arthur; Defendant/appellant: Abeiku Arthur; Defendant/appellant: George Arthur; Defendant/appellant: Atta Ocran; Defendant/appellant: Mad. Adwoa Ackon; Defendant/appellant: Kwesi Essoun; Defendant/appellant: Papa Yaw; Defendant/appellant: Mr. Joseph Aidoo; Defendant/appellant: Samuel Krah alias Kweku Annan; Defendant/appellant: Albert Kojo Dadzie-Fynn; Defendant/appellant: Egya Kwandador Jnr; Defendant/appellant: Opanyin Kwei; Defendant/appellant: Atoamu Kwaw; Defendant/appellant: Egya Ackon (Driver)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
26 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal to Supreme Court From Court of Appeal Decision Affirming High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Trespass, Recovery of Possession, Declaratory Relief, Identification of Land, Estoppel
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Res Judicata Trespass Recovery of Possession Declaratory Relief Identification of Land Estoppel

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nana Brafo Dadazie II

Plaintiff/respondent

John King Arthur

Defendant/appellant

Abeiku Arthur

Defendant/appellant

George Arthur

Defendant/appellant

Atta Ocran

Defendant/appellant

Mad. Adwoa Ackon

Defendant/appellant

Kwesi Essoun

Defendant/appellant

Papa Yaw

Defendant/appellant

Mr. Joseph Aidoo

Defendant/appellant

Samuel Krah alias Kweku Annan

Defendant/appellant

Albert Kojo Dadzie-Fynn

Defendant/appellant

Egya Kwandador Jnr

Defendant/appellant

Opanyin Kwei

Defendant/appellant

Atoamu Kwaw

Defendant/appellant

Egya Ackon (Driver)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal to Supreme Court From Court of Appeal Decision Affirming High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgments of the Circuit Court and Court of Appeal described and gave boundaries of Upper Shama Junction lands
  2. 2 Whether the previous judgments operated as res judicata against the appellants
  3. 3 Whether the trial High Court and Court of Appeal erred in finding for the respondent on trespass and recovery of possession

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the previous judgments did not describe or identify the boundaries of Upper Shama Junction lands, and the parties were not the same. Therefore, the judgments could not operate as res judicata. The trial High Court and Court of Appeal erred in finding for the respondent. The appeal was allowed and the judgments below set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the trial High Court dated 25th July 2013 set aside
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 10th December 2014 set aside