Achiampong Vrs Obaapayin Aba Yaa & 5 [2020] GHASC 83 (5 February 2020)

Achiampong Vrs Obaapayin Aba Yaa & 5 [2020] GHASC 83 (5 February 2020)

The trial court exercised its discretion fairly and judicially in refusing leave to reinstitute the action, considering the protracted litigation, hardship to defendants, and the appellant's opportunity to regularize pleadings. No exceptional circumstances warrant appellate interference.

Citation
Achiampong Vrs Obaapayin Aba Yaa & 5 [2020] GHASC 83 (5 February 2020)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Mrs. Margaret Yaa Ntiriwa Achiampong; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Obaapayin Aba Yaa (substituted for Araba Adawoma); Defendant/respondent/respondent: Anthony Andoh; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Ama Nkrumah; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Sewaah; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Nana Kwabena; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Kwaku Awa
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
5 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Discontinuance of Action, Leave to Reinstitute, Judicial Discretion, Title to Land, Title to House
Source Language
eng
Civil Procedure Property Law Discontinuance of Action Leave to Reinstitute Judicial Discretion Title to Land Title to House

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. Margaret Yaa Ntiriwa Achiampong

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

Obaapayin Aba Yaa (substituted for Araba Adawoma)

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Anthony Andoh

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Ama Nkrumah

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Sewaah

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Nana Kwabena

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Kwaku Awa

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court and Court of Appeal failed to consider the evidence adequately to do justice
  2. 2 Whether the trial court exercised its discretion fairly in refusing leave to reinstitute the action

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court exercised its discretion fairly and judicially in refusing leave to reinstitute the action, considering the protracted litigation, hardship to defendants, and the appellant's opportunity to regularize pleadings. No exceptional circumstances warrant appellate interference.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; trial court's refusal to grant leave to reinstitute action affirmed.