Amidu and Another Vrs Alawiye and Others [2019] GHASC 28 (24 July 2019)

Amidu and Another Vrs Alawiye and Others [2019] GHASC 28 (24 July 2019)

On a balance of probabilities, plaintiffs proved a better claim to the disputed land at Okaishie, supported by registered documentary evidence and the surveyor’s composite plan, while defendants failed to prove their claim or the existence of a Cowlane property sharing boundary. Defendants’ defences of limitation, acquiescence, and laches were not specifically pleaded and cannot defeat plaintiffs’ claim. Relief (c) regarding the public lane was dismissed as plaintiffs had no cause of action.

Citation
[2019] GHASC 28
Parties
Plaintiffs/respondents/appellants: Amidu Alhassan Amidu & Anor.; Defendants/appellants/respondents: Mutiu Alawiye & 6 Ors.
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
24 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal succeeds in part and is allowed in part. Judgment for plaintiffs on all reliefs except relief (c) and (e).
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title to Land, Recovery of Possession, Burden of Proof, Adverse Possession, Statute of Limitation, Public Nuisance, Evidence, Pleadings
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Declaration of Title to Land Recovery of Possession Burden of Proof Adverse Possession Statute of Limitation Public Nuisance +2 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amidu Alhassan Amidu & Anor.

Plaintiffs/respondents/appellants

Mutiu Alawiye & 6 Ors.

Defendants/appellants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs proved title to the disputed land on a balance of probabilities
  2. 2 Whether defendants' claim of adverse possession, acquiescence, and limitation was valid
  3. 3 Whether the disputed land is at Okaishie or Cowlane

Ratio Decidendi

On a balance of probabilities, plaintiffs proved a better claim to the disputed land at Okaishie, supported by registered documentary evidence and the surveyor’s composite plan, while defendants failed to prove their claim or the existence of a Cowlane property sharing boundary. Defendants’ defences of limitation, acquiescence, and laches were not specifically pleaded and cannot defeat plaintiffs’ claim. Relief (c) regarding the public lane was dismissed as plaintiffs had no cause of action.

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds in part and is allowed in part. Judgment for plaintiffs on all reliefs except relief (c) and (e).

Orders

  • Plaintiffs declared owners of the land delineated on their site plan at page 292 of the record.
  • Order for registration of the said plan in plaintiffs’ names as the judgment plan.