Acheampong Vrs Yaa and Others [2020] GHASC 34 (5 February 2020)
The trial court exercised its discretion fairly and judicially in refusing the appellant leave to reinstitute the action after discontinuance, considering the protracted litigation, hardship to defendants, and the appellant's opportunity to regularize pleadings. There were no exceptional circumstances warranting appellate interference.
- Citation
- Acheampong Vrs Yaa and Others [2020] GHASC 34 (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: Serwaah; 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 (supreme Court)
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Discontinuance of Action, Leave to Reinstitute Action, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Title to Land, Title to House, Customary Succession
- Source Language
- eng
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Serwaah
Defendant/respondent/respondent
Nana Kwabena
Defendant/respondent/respondent
Kwaku Awa
Defendant/respondent/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court and Court of Appeal failed to consider the evidence adequately to do justice to the case
- 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 the appellant leave to reinstitute the action after discontinuance, considering the protracted litigation, hardship to defendants, and the appellant's opportunity to regularize pleadings. There were no exceptional circumstances warranting appellate interference.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed as without merit.
- No leave granted to reinstitute the action.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment