NENE TEI DJAHENE KORABO IV VRS MANKRALO TETTEH LAMIIYOR & 4 OTHERS (H1/09/20) [2022] GHACA 98 (28 April 2022)

NENE TEI DJAHENE KORABO IV VRS MANKRALO TETTEH LAMIIYOR & 4 OTHERS (H1/09/20) [2022] GHACA 98 (28 April 2022)

Plaintiff established possessory and user rights and proved root of title, mode of acquisition, and acts of ownership over the disputed land and cemetery on a balance of probabilities. Defendants failed to prove their counterclaim for the larger tract of land, did not tender site plan or credible evidence of ownership, and inconsistencies undermined their case. Plaintiff's physical possession and overt acts of ownership prevail.

Citation
[2022] GHACA 98
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Nene Tei Djahene Korabo IV; 1st Defendant/respondent: Odeopeo Martey Kodjoe Ahwa IV; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Nene Adzatey Mlikiti; 3rd Defendant/respondent: Chief Agboza II; 4th Defendant/respondent: Asafoatse Okofo Badu IV; 5th Defendant/respondent: Asafoatse Tete Adibor
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
28 April 2022
Case Number
H1/09/20
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; high court judgment set aside
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Recovery of Possession, Perpetual Injunction, Burden of Proof, Counterclaim, Customary Land Ownership, Limitation, Estoppel
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Customary Law Declaration of Title Recovery of Possession Perpetual Injunction Burden of Proof Counterclaim +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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nene Tei Djahene Korabo IV

Plaintiff/appellant

Odeopeo Martey Kodjoe Ahwa IV

1st Defendant/respondent

Nene Adzatey Mlikiti

2nd Defendant/respondent

Chief Agboza II

3rd Defendant/respondent

Asafoatse Okofo Badu IV

4th Defendant/respondent

Asafoatse Tete Adibor

5th Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who owns the disputed land at Jorpanya?
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title, recovery of possession, and injunction.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants proved their counterclaim for title to the larger tract of land including the cemetery.

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff established possessory and user rights and proved root of title, mode of acquisition, and acts of ownership over the disputed land and cemetery on a balance of probabilities. Defendants failed to prove their counterclaim for the larger tract of land, did not tender site plan or credible evidence of ownership, and inconsistencies undermined their case. Plaintiff's physical possession and overt acts of ownership prevail.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; high court judgment set aside

Orders

  • Declaration of title to land described in paragraph 3 of plaintiff's statement of claim granted to plaintiff/appellant.
  • Recovery of possession of the area designated as cemetery granted to plaintiff/appellant.