NII AFLAH II VRS BOATENG (H1/155/2021) [2021] GHACA 22 (16 December 2021)

NII AFLAH II VRS BOATENG (H1/155/2021) [2021] GHACA 22 (16 December 2021)

The appellate court found that the plaintiff had validly acquired part of the land, had been in open and undisturbed possession for over 12 years, and that the defendant’s claims were statute-barred. The court held that the prior judgment did not operate as res judicata since the parties and causes of action were not the same. The power of attorney was found to be valid, and the trial judge’s findings were supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Citation
[2021] GHACA 22
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Nii Aflah II; Plaintiff/respondent: Benjamin Kwaku Boateng
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
16 December 2021
Case Number
H1/155/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Perpetual Injunction, Res Judicata, Capacity to Sue, Statute of Limitations
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Declaration of Title Perpetual Injunction Res Judicata Capacity to Sue Statute of Limitations

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nii Aflah II

Defendant/appellant

Benjamin Kwaku Boateng

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff obtained valid title to the land in dispute
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff or defendant put up a house on the disputed land
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has been in possession of the house in dispute for more than 20 years without let or hindrance

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the plaintiff had validly acquired part of the land, had been in open and undisturbed possession for over 12 years, and that the defendant’s claims were statute-barred. The court held that the prior judgment did not operate as res judicata since the parties and causes of action were not the same. The power of attorney was found to be valid, and the trial judge’s findings were supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court affirmed
  • Plaintiff’s title to the land declared