Amoak Vrs Awuah & Another [2023] GHADC 245 (10 May 2023)

Amoak Vrs Awuah & Another [2023] GHADC 245 (10 May 2023)

The Plaintiff failed to prove her late father acquired the disputed land from Maame Agyanimah, and the evidence established that the Chief of Elluibo granted the disputed land to the 1st Defendant’s late father. The Plaintiff’s permit and will did not cover the disputed land, and the environmental officer’s summons related only to weeds on sand, not land ownership. On the preponderance of probabilities, the disputed land belongs to the 1st Defendant, and the Plaintiff is not entitled to her claim.

Citation
[2023] GHADC 245
Parties
Plaintiff: Janet Amoako; Defendant: Francis Awuah; Defendant: Kwame Abunubunu
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
10 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Recovery of Possession, Perpetual Injunction, Land Ownership, Evidence, Wills
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Declaration of Title Recovery of Possession Perpetual Injunction Land Ownership Evidence Wills

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janet Amoako

Plaintiff

Francis Awuah

Defendant

Kwame Abunubunu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff’s late father acquired the disputed land from Maame Agyanimah
  2. 2 Whether the Chief of Elluibo granted the disputed land to the 1st Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to her claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to prove her late father acquired the disputed land from Maame Agyanimah, and the evidence established that the Chief of Elluibo granted the disputed land to the 1st Defendant’s late father. The Plaintiff’s permit and will did not cover the disputed land, and the environmental officer’s summons related only to weeds on sand, not land ownership. On the preponderance of probabilities, the disputed land belongs to the 1st Defendant, and the Plaintiff is not entitled to her claim.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed