Nunoo Vrs Ataglo [2020] GHASC 92 (28 July 2020)

Nunoo Vrs Ataglo [2020] GHASC 92 (28 July 2020)

The plaintiff established her root of title through a customary grant from the Asere Stool and subsequent re-acquisition from Charosse Stores, supported by acts of possession. The defendant's provisional land certificate was issued by mistake, as the registrar failed to investigate prior registered interests. The defendant was not in exclusive adverse possession, and limitation did not extinguish the plaintiff's title due to pending litigation. The Court of Appeal erred in its findings; the High Court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is restored.

Citation
Nunoo Vrs Ataglo [2020] GHASC 92 (28 July 2020)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Mary Larley Nunoo; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Manase Ataglo
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment set aside; High Court judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title to Land, Perpetual Injunction, Cancellation of Title Certificate, Recovery of Possession, Damages for Trespass, Limitation of Actions, Land Registration, Customary Land Grants
Source Language
eng
Land Law Property Law Civil Procedure Declaration of Title to Land Perpetual Injunction Cancellation of Title Certificate Recovery of Possession Damages for Trespass +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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Larley Nunoo

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Manase Ataglo

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff established title to the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's provisional land certificate conferred indefeasible title
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was in adverse possession to extinguish plaintiff's title under the Limitation Act

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established her root of title through a customary grant from the Asere Stool and subsequent re-acquisition from Charosse Stores, supported by acts of possession. The defendant's provisional land certificate was issued by mistake, as the registrar failed to investigate prior registered interests. The defendant was not in exclusive adverse possession, and limitation did not extinguish the plaintiff's title due to pending litigation. The Court of Appeal erred in its findings; the High Court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment set aside; High Court judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • Declaration of title to the plaintiff for the disputed land
  • Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiff’s enjoyment