F. K. A. Company Ltd and Another Vrs Akramah Ii and Others [2016] GHASC 8 (13 April 2016)

F. K. A. Company Ltd and Another Vrs Akramah Ii and Others [2016] GHASC 8 (13 April 2016)

The plaintiffs and co-plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof for declaration of title to the disputed land, and the Court of Appeal erred in relying on Exhibit H, which was void for want of jurisdiction. The evidence supported the trial judge's finding that the Danchira lands are owned by a composite of four families of Asere lineage, as demonstrated by acts of possession, grants to tenants, and corroborated testimony. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's decision and set aside the Court of Appeal's judgment.

Citation
[2016] GHASC 8
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: F. K. A. Company Limited; Co Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Nii Teiko Okine substituted by Nii Tackie Amoah VI; 1st Defendant/respondent/appellant: Nii Ayikai Akramah II substituted by Nii Tettey Okorh-Aryee; 2nd Defendant/respondent/appellant: Nii Dodoo Lomotey; 3rd Defendant/respondent/appellant: Kwakufio; 4th Defendant/respondent/appellant: Togbui Okru; 5th Defendant/respondent/appellant: Ebenezer Okru
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
13 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate (supreme Court) Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment set aside; trial court judgment restored
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title to Land, Counterclaim, Burden of Proof, Appeals Procedure, Capacity to Sue, Estoppel, Jurisdiction of Traditional Councils
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Declaration of Title to Land Counterclaim Burden of Proof Appeals Procedure Capacity to Sue Estoppel +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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. K. A. Company Limited

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Nii Teiko Okine substituted by Nii Tackie Amoah VI

Co Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Nii Ayikai Akramah II substituted by Nii Tettey Okorh-Aryee

1st Defendant/respondent/appellant

Nii Dodoo Lomotey

2nd Defendant/respondent/appellant

Kwakufio

3rd Defendant/respondent/appellant

Togbui Okru

4th Defendant/respondent/appellant

Ebenezer Okru

5th Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate (supreme Court) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the trial court's finding on ownership of Danchira lands
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal properly relied on Exhibit H (Ga Traditional Council judgment)
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs met the burden of proof for declaration of title

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs and co-plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof for declaration of title to the disputed land, and the Court of Appeal erred in relying on Exhibit H, which was void for want of jurisdiction. The evidence supported the trial judge's finding that the Danchira lands are owned by a composite of four families of Asere lineage, as demonstrated by acts of possession, grants to tenants, and corroborated testimony. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's decision and set aside the Court of Appeal's judgment.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment set aside; trial court judgment restored

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claims for declaration of title, damages, and injunction dismissed
  • Defendants' counterclaim for ownership of Danchira lands by four composite families of Asere lineage upheld