Amoako Vrs Osei [2016] GHASC 93 (1 June 2016)

Amoako Vrs Osei [2016] GHASC 93 (1 June 2016)

The respondent failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, any joint ownership or partnership in the business or properties; the evidence and documents supported the appellant's sole ownership. The lower courts erred in relying on uncorroborated assertions and emotional reasoning rather than established facts and law.

Citation
[2016] GHASC 93
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Emmanuel Osei Amoako; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Standford Edward Osei (substituted by Bridget Osei Lartey & Kofi Asare)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
1 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal reversed; counterclaim granted.
Legal Topics
Joint Ownership, Burden of Proof, Appeals, Counterclaim, Evidence, Business Partnerships
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Trusts Joint Ownership Burden of Proof Appeals Counterclaim Evidence +1 more

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmanuel Osei Amoako

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Standford Edward Osei (substituted by Bridget Osei Lartey & Kofi Asare)

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was a student at Accra Polytechnic at the time he joined the appellant in business
  2. 2 Whether the appellant persuaded the respondent to stop schooling to assist in business
  3. 3 Whether the parties established a joint business

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, any joint ownership or partnership in the business or properties; the evidence and documents supported the appellant's sole ownership. The lower courts erred in relying on uncorroborated assertions and emotional reasoning rather than established facts and law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal reversed; counterclaim granted.

Orders

  • Respondent to vacate the portion of the Russia house he is occupying and make it available to the appellant’s wife and children.