LARTEY AND OTHERS VRS. DJIN (J4/40/2022) [2022] GHASC 129 (29 June 2022)

LARTEY AND OTHERS VRS. DJIN (J4/40/2022) [2022] GHASC 129 (29 June 2022)

The appellants failed to prove they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice as they did not conduct official searches at the Land Title Registry before acquisition, and all searches were conducted after the purported acquisition. The 1st Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant were unnecessary parties and are struck out. The respondent's title was validly transferred and registered in accordance with the law. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 129
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Madam Randi Lartey; 2nd Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Samuel Nii Otoo Ankrah; 3rd Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Mrs Agnes Esi Ankrah; 1st Defendant/appellant/respondent: Yaw Aboah Djin; 2nd Defendant: Justiny Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
29 June 2022
Case Number
J4/40/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice, Land Title Registration, Counterclaim Procedure
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Joinder of Parties Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice Land Title Registration Counterclaim Procedure

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

Parties

Madam Randi Lartey

1st Plaintiff

Samuel Nii Otoo Ankrah

2nd Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Mrs Agnes Esi Ankrah

3rd Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Yaw Aboah Djin

1st Defendant/appellant/respondent

Justiny Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs/Appellants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant were necessary parties to the suit
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal properly evaluated the evidence and counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to prove they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice as they did not conduct official searches at the Land Title Registry before acquisition, and all searches were conducted after the purported acquisition. The 1st Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant were unnecessary parties and are struck out. The respondent's title was validly transferred and registered in accordance with the law. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • 1st Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant struck out as parties
  • High Court and Court of Appeal decisions affirmed as to respondent's title