Asante & Anor Vrs Amponsah & Anor [2022] GHASC 39 (20 January 2022)

Asante & Anor Vrs Amponsah & Anor [2022] GHASC 39 (20 January 2022)

The appellants could not acquire valid title as Akweinas Farms had already divested its interest to the respondents, making any subsequent grant to the appellants void under the nemo dat quod non habet principle. The respondents' prior registration constituted actual notice to the appellants. The appellants fraudulently procured land title certificates using documents from a party with no title, and fraud was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Possession alone could not defeat a better title.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 39
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: George Kwadwo Asante; Plaintiff/appellant: Eric Danpare Asante; Defendant/respondent: Madam Abena Amponsah; Defendant/respondent: Peter Kofi Adu
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
20 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Registration of Land, Fraud in Land Transactions, Counterclaim, Principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet, Rectification of Land Register
Source Language
English
Land Law Property Law Civil Procedure Declaration of Title Registration of Land Fraud in Land Transactions Counterclaim Principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet +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 5 Authorities cited 39 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Kwadwo Asante

Plaintiff/appellant

Eric Danpare Asante

Plaintiff/appellant

Madam Abena Amponsah

Defendant/respondent

Peter Kofi Adu

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants had valid title to the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' prior registration and grant defeated the appellants' claim
  3. 3 Whether fraud was committed in the procurement of land title certificates

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants could not acquire valid title as Akweinas Farms had already divested its interest to the respondents, making any subsequent grant to the appellants void under the nemo dat quod non habet principle. The respondents' prior registration constituted actual notice to the appellants. The appellants fraudulently procured land title certificates using documents from a party with no title, and fraud was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Possession alone could not defeat a better title.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal affirmed
  • Land Title Certificates of appellants cancelled