Maley Nai Vrs East Dadekotopon Development Trust [2019] GHASC 24 (8 May 2019)

Maley Nai Vrs East Dadekotopon Development Trust [2019] GHASC 24 (8 May 2019)

The plaintiff-family is estopped per rem judicatem and by conduct, laches, and acquiescence from relitigating or asserting interest in the disputed land, as the issue of title was previously determined against them and they stood by while the defendant exercised acts of ownership.

Citation
[2019] GHASC 24
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Nii Stephen Maley Nai (suing as head of Numo Kwashie Mensah Dade Nsuroja Family); Defendant/respondent/respondent: East Dadekotopon Development Trust
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
8 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Affirming High Court Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed; decisions of trial High Court and Court of Appeal affirmed
Legal Topics
Estoppel, Res Judicata, Land Title, Customary Law, Laches and Acquiescence
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Estoppel Res Judicata Land Title Customary Law Laches and Acquiescence

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nii Stephen Maley Nai (suing as head of Numo Kwashie Mensah Dade Nsuroja Family)

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

East Dadekotopon Development Trust

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Affirming High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff-family is estopped per rem judicatem from relitigating title to the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff-family is estopped by conduct, laches, and acquiescence from asserting interest in the land

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff-family is estopped per rem judicatem and by conduct, laches, and acquiescence from relitigating or asserting interest in the disputed land, as the issue of title was previously determined against them and they stood by while the defendant exercised acts of ownership.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; decisions of trial High Court and Court of Appeal affirmed