Togbe Lulu Awadali Iv Vrs Gloryland Esates & Another [2022] GHACA 38 (8 July 2022)

Togbe Lulu Awadali Iv Vrs Gloryland Esates & Another [2022] GHACA 38 (8 July 2022)

The appellate court found that the plaintiff is the head of the Anyigbe clan and the Awadali family, with the authority to alienate Anyigbe clan lands, based on historical judgments, recognition, and lack of credible evidence to the contrary from the 2nd defendant. The trial judge erred by introducing usufructuary interest and failing to properly assess the evidence and judgments tendered by the plaintiff. The appeal was upheld, and the plaintiff's claims were granted except for recovery of possession of the land already granted to the 1st defendant, who must now attorn tenant to the plaintiff.

Citation
Togbe Lulu Awadali Iv Vrs Gloryland Esates & Another [2022] GHACA 38 (8 July 2022)
Parties
Appellant/appellant: Togbe Lugu Awadali IV; Defendant/respondent: Gloryland Estates; Defendant/respondent: Torgbui Aborbor VIII
Court
ghaca
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
8 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; trial judgment set aside
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Headship of Clan, Alienation of Clan Lands, Injunction, Damages, Customary Succession
Source Language
eng
Land Law Customary Law Declaration of Title Headship of Clan Alienation of Clan Lands Injunction Damages Customary Succession

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

Parties

Togbe Lugu Awadali IV

Appellant/appellant

Gloryland Estates

Defendant/respondent

Torgbui Aborbor VIII

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff or the 2nd defendant is the head and lawful representative of the Awadali family
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff or the 2nd defendant is the head of the Anyigbe Clan of Agave
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff or the 2nd defendant has the authority to alienate Anyigbe Clan lands

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the plaintiff is the head of the Anyigbe clan and the Awadali family, with the authority to alienate Anyigbe clan lands, based on historical judgments, recognition, and lack of credible evidence to the contrary from the 2nd defendant. The trial judge erred by introducing usufructuary interest and failing to properly assess the evidence and judgments tendered by the plaintiff. The appeal was upheld, and the plaintiff's claims were granted except for recovery of possession of the land already granted to the 1st defendant, who must now attorn tenant to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; trial judgment set aside

Orders

  • Declaration that plaintiff is the head of the Anyigbe clan and Awadali family with authority to alienate Anyigbe clan lands
  • Perpetual injunction restraining 2nd defendant and his agents from dealing with Anyigbe lands without plaintiff's consent