Bamfo Vrs Sintim [2011] GHASC 32 (30 November 2011)

Bamfo Vrs Sintim [2011] GHASC 32 (30 November 2011)

Exhibit 'A' was a forged and unregistered document, thus incapable of conferring title on the appellant. The respondent also failed to prove his counter-claim for declaration of title as his instrument was not shown to be registered and he did not call his grantor as a witness. The Court of Appeal erred in finding perjury against P.W.1 and in holding that Exhibit '1' was a registered instrument. Both parties failed to meet the standard of proof required for declaration of title to land.

Citation
[2011] GHASC 32
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Kwadwo Sasu Bamfo; Defendant/respondent: Kwesi Sintim
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
30 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appellant's appeal succeeds in part and fails in part; respondent's counter-claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Registration of Instruments, Forgery, Burden of Proof, Perjury
Source Language
English
Land Law Evidence Law Declaration of Title Registration of Instruments Forgery Burden of Proof Perjury

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kwadwo Sasu Bamfo

Plaintiff/appellant

Kwesi Sintim

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Exhibit 'A' (the appellant's lease) was a forgery and thus invalid to confer title
  2. 2 Whether the respondent proved his counter-claim for declaration of title and related reliefs
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings on perjury and registration of instruments

Ratio Decidendi

Exhibit 'A' was a forged and unregistered document, thus incapable of conferring title on the appellant. The respondent also failed to prove his counter-claim for declaration of title as his instrument was not shown to be registered and he did not call his grantor as a witness. The Court of Appeal erred in finding perjury against P.W.1 and in holding that Exhibit '1' was a registered instrument. Both parties failed to meet the standard of proof required for declaration of title to land.

Court Disposition

Appellant's appeal succeeds in part and fails in part; respondent's counter-claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Counter-claim dismissed
  • Court of Appeal's finding of perjury set aside