EBUSUAPANYIN KWAME ATTA VRS EBUSUAPANYIN KWAKU AMOESI (J4/22/2024) [2024] GHASC 22 (24 April 2024)

EBUSUAPANYIN KWAME ATTA VRS EBUSUAPANYIN KWAKU AMOESI (J4/22/2024) [2024] GHASC 22 (24 April 2024)

The appellant failed to prove exclusive title to the Akatakyiwa lands, as acts of possession and occupation by the respondent's family in recent and living memory outweighed conflicting traditional evidence. The Court of Appeal erred in granting the respondent title to the entire land in the absence of a counterclaim and sufficient proof. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision subject to the variation that neither party is entitled to exclusive title over the entire land.

Citation
EBUSUAPANYIN KWAME ATTA VRS EBUSUAPANYIN KWAKU AMOESI (J4/22/2024) [2024] GHASC 22 (24 April 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Ebusuapanyin Kwame Atta (substituted by Ebusuapanyin Kofi Kwa Dua); Defendant/appellant/respondent: Ebusuapanyin Kwaku Amoesi
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
24 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed with variation
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title to Land, Possession and Ownership, Burden of Proof, Traditional Evidence, Appeals Procedure, Counterclaim Requirements
Source Language
eng
Land Law Customary Law Civil Procedure Declaration of Title to Land Possession and Ownership Burden of Proof Traditional Evidence Appeals Procedure +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ebusuapanyin Kwame Atta (substituted by Ebusuapanyin Kofi Kwa Dua)

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Ebusuapanyin Kwaku Amoesi

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved exclusive title to Akatakyiwa lands against the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in entering judgment for the respondent in the absence of a counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether acts of possession and occupation by the respondent's family outweigh traditional evidence in determining title

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove exclusive title to the Akatakyiwa lands, as acts of possession and occupation by the respondent's family in recent and living memory outweighed conflicting traditional evidence. The Court of Appeal erred in granting the respondent title to the entire land in the absence of a counterclaim and sufficient proof. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision subject to the variation that neither party is entitled to exclusive title over the entire land.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed with variation

Orders

  • Court of Appeal judgment dated 29th June 2022 affirmed subject to variation that neither party is entitled to exclusive title to the entire Akatakyiwa lands
  • GHS 20,000.00 costs awarded to respondent against appellant