Apenu Vrs Akakpo And 2 Others (E1/15/2019) [2024] GHAHC 239 (17 April 2024)

Apenu Vrs Akakpo And 2 Others (E1/15/2019) [2024] GHAHC 239 (17 April 2024)

The plaintiff failed to establish title to the land, as the CHRAJ agreement recognized the defendants as owners and only allowed the plaintiff to acquire title upon full payment by a specified date, which he breached. The agreement lapsed, and the plaintiff forfeited any interest. The defendants are entitled to recover possession and are relieved from obligations under the agreement. Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of his deposit, but not to specific performance or injunction.

Citation
Apenu Vrs Akakpo And 2 Others (E1/15/2019) [2024] GHAHC 239 (17 April 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff: David Apenu; Defendant: Abla Akakpo; Defendant: Janet Semenya; Defendant: Elizabeth Akakpo
Court
ghahc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
17 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Land Dispute / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendants' counterclaim upheld.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, Customary Succession, Injunction, Counterclaim, Trespass, Equitable Remedies
Source Language
eng
Land Law Contract Law Customary Law Title to Land Specific Performance Breach of Contract Customary Succession Injunction +3 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Apenu

Plaintiff

Abla Akakpo

Defendant

Janet Semenya

Defendant

Elizabeth Akakpo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Land Dispute / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the land in dispute belongs to the defendants' predecessor
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's predecessor was a tenant farmer or licensee
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has title to the land sold

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish title to the land, as the CHRAJ agreement recognized the defendants as owners and only allowed the plaintiff to acquire title upon full payment by a specified date, which he breached. The agreement lapsed, and the plaintiff forfeited any interest. The defendants are entitled to recover possession and are relieved from obligations under the agreement. Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of his deposit, but not to specific performance or injunction.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendants' counterclaim upheld.

Orders

  • Declaration of title in favour of defendants over the disputed land at Viepe Tokor.
  • Order for recovery of possession of the five plots from the plaintiff.