Asumadu Vrs Ameyaw [2019] GHASC 22 (15 May 2019)

Asumadu Vrs Ameyaw [2019] GHASC 22 (15 May 2019)

The plaintiffs failed to properly plead and prove fraud as required by law to set aside the previous judgment. The trial High Court and Court of Appeal erred in re-opening and determining issues already decided, which are res judicata. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2019] GHASC 22
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Nana Asumadu II (deceased) substituted by Nana Darku Ampem (deceased) substituted by Ebusuapayin Amgo Mensah; Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Nana Danyi Quarm IV (deceased) substituted by Samuel Ekobo Acquaye; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Agya Ameyaw
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
15 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud in Obtaining Judgment, Res Judicata, Pleading Requirements for Fraud, Burden of Proof in Fraud, Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Fraud in Obtaining Judgment Res Judicata Pleading Requirements for Fraud Burden of Proof in Fraud Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nana Asumadu II (deceased) substituted by Nana Darku Ampem (deceased) substituted by Ebusuapayin Amgo Mensah

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Nana Danyi Quarm IV (deceased) substituted by Samuel Ekobo Acquaye

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Agya Ameyaw

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment in Suit No. LS. 45/2000 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the trial High Court erred in re-opening and determining issues already decided in a previous judgment
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs properly pleaded and proved fraud to set aside the previous judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to properly plead and prove fraud as required by law to set aside the previous judgment. The trial High Court and Court of Appeal erred in re-opening and determining issues already decided, which are res judicata. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed