Musah Vrs Musah [2011] GHASC 22 (17 May 2011)

Musah Vrs Musah [2011] GHASC 22 (17 May 2011)

The Supreme Court found no error in the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts, holding that the first defendant's version was more probable and supported by evidence, and that she was entitled to two-thirds interest in the property as per her contribution.

Citation
[2011] GHASC 22
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Hawa Musah; Defendant/respondent: Fati Musah
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
17 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed; decision of Court of Appeal affirmed
Legal Topics
Joint Ownership, Distribution of Estate, Specific Performance, Counterclaim, Evidence Assessment
Source Language
English
Property Law Succession Law Joint Ownership Distribution of Estate Specific Performance Counterclaim Evidence Assessment

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hawa Musah

Plaintiff/appellant

Fati Musah

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the payment by the first defendant was on behalf of the plaintiffs or in her own right as purchaser
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant is entitled to two-thirds interest in the property
  3. 3 Whether the amount paid by the first defendant was a loan or consideration for ownership

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found no error in the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts, holding that the first defendant's version was more probable and supported by evidence, and that she was entitled to two-thirds interest in the property as per her contribution.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; decision of Court of Appeal affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Counterclaim of first defendant succeeds