Asumadu Ii and Another Vrs Ameyaw [2019] GHASC 75 (15 March 2019)

Asumadu Ii and Another Vrs Ameyaw [2019] GHASC 75 (15 March 2019)

The plaintiffs failed to properly plead and prove fraud as required by law. The trial High Court erred in re-opening and determining issues already decided in Suit No. LS. 45/2000, contrary to the principle that only the issue of fraud should have been considered. The Court of Appeal was correct in finding that the allegation of fraud was not proven and that the other issues were res judicata. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2019] GHASC 75
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 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud in Obtaining Judgment, Res Judicata, Pleading Standards, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Fraud in Obtaining Judgment Res Judicata Pleading Standards Burden of Proof

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 18 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 a matter already decided between the same parties by a court of competent jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs properly pleaded and proved fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to properly plead and prove fraud as required by law. The trial High Court erred in re-opening and determining issues already decided in Suit No. LS. 45/2000, contrary to the principle that only the issue of fraud should have been considered. The Court of Appeal was correct in finding that the allegation of fraud was not proven and that the other issues were res judicata. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed