Binyam Vrs Talin & Another [2022] GHADC 230 (20 June 2022)

Binyam Vrs Talin & Another [2022] GHADC 230 (20 June 2022)

The Gbungbaliga Lana is the proper authority for land sales in Lungni. The disputed plot was part of the 41 plots previously sold to the plaintiff’s family. The Tindana and Ben Tikuri had no authority to resell the plot to the defendants, and the nemo dat quod non habet rule applies. The plaintiff, as head of family, had capacity to sue. The defendants acquired no valid title, and the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title, recovery of possession, and a perpetual injunction.

Citation
[2022] GHADC 230
Parties
Plaintiff: Jangboja Binyam; Defendant: Dana Talin; Defendant: Dana Dawuni
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
20 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Land Dispute / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Family Property, Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet, Customary Land Sale, Injunction
Source Language
English
Land Law Customary Law Title to Land Family Property Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Customary Land Sale Injunction

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jangboja Binyam

Plaintiff

Dana Talin

Defendant

Dana Dawuni

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Dispute / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is the Gbungbaliga Lana or the Tindana of Lungni who has the prerogative in the sale of land in Lungni
  2. 2 Whether the Gbungbaliga Lana resold a part of the parcel of 41 plots belonging to the plaintiff’s family to the defendants
  3. 3 Whether or not it was the Gbungbaliga Lana or Tindana of Lungni who sold the disputed plot to the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The Gbungbaliga Lana is the proper authority for land sales in Lungni. The disputed plot was part of the 41 plots previously sold to the plaintiff’s family. The Tindana and Ben Tikuri had no authority to resell the plot to the defendants, and the nemo dat quod non habet rule applies. The plaintiff, as head of family, had capacity to sue. The defendants acquired no valid title, and the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title, recovery of possession, and a perpetual injunction.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Declaration of title to the land in favour of the plaintiff
  • Plaintiff to recover possession of the plot without hindrance