Agorvor Vrs Kwao [2019] GHASC 72 (27 March 2019)

Agorvor Vrs Kwao [2019] GHASC 72 (27 March 2019)

The plaintiff had capacity to sue due to the head of family's incapacity and the land being in jeopardy; both parties described the same land, so identity was not in dispute; the plaintiff's family was entitled to possessory rights due to long, undisturbed possession; and the award of damages for trespass was proper as the defendants' encroachment provoked the action.

Citation
[2019] GHASC 72
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Subunor Agorvor (suing on his behalf and on behalf of the Agorvor Family of Tamatoku); Defendant/appellant/appellant: Mr. J. K. Kwao; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Aaron Narh Achia
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
27 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Possessory Rights, Capacity to Sue, Identity of Land, Damages for Trespass, Counterclaim, Appellate Procedure
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Declaration of Title Possessory Rights Capacity to Sue Identity of Land Damages for Trespass Counterclaim +1 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Subunor Agorvor (suing on his behalf and on behalf of the Agorvor Family of Tamatoku)

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Mr. J. K. Kwao

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Aaron Narh Achia

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff had capacity to sue on behalf of the family
  2. 2 Whether the identity of the disputed land was sufficiently established
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting possessory rights to the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had capacity to sue due to the head of family's incapacity and the land being in jeopardy; both parties described the same land, so identity was not in dispute; the plaintiff's family was entitled to possessory rights due to long, undisturbed possession; and the award of damages for trespass was proper as the defendants' encroachment provoked the action.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff's family retains possessory rights over the disputed land.