Amiyuure Vrs Nyab & 2 Others [2022] GHADC 309 (19 September 2022)

Amiyuure Vrs Nyab & 2 Others [2022] GHADC 309 (19 September 2022)

The Plaintiff and 3rd Defendant claimed the same land; Plaintiff's purchase in 2015 was first in time, and the 2nd Defendant had no title to convey to the 3rd Defendant in 2016. The Plaintiff proved his case by a preponderance of the probabilities, while the 3rd Defendant failed to prove her counterclaim. The sale to the 3rd Defendant was null and void under the nemo dat principle.

Citation
[2022] GHADC 309
Parties
Plaintiff: Joshua Atule Amiyuure; 1st Defendant: Daniel Nyaba; 2nd Defendant: Robert Akanlutey; 3rd Defendant: Francisca Avade Adita
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
19 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (land Dispute) / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim succeeds; 3rd Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Injunctions, Counterclaims, Burden of Proof, Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Injunctions Counterclaims Burden of Proof Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joshua Atule Amiyuure

Plaintiff

Daniel Nyaba

1st Defendant

Robert Akanlutey

2nd Defendant

Francisca Avade Adita

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (land Dispute) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the land sold to the Plaintiff in 2015 is the same as the one sold to the 3rd Defendant in 2016
  2. 2 Whether Plaintiff or 3rd Defendant is the owner of the land in dispute
  3. 3 Whether the 3rd Defendant is entitled to her counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff and 3rd Defendant claimed the same land; Plaintiff's purchase in 2015 was first in time, and the 2nd Defendant had no title to convey to the 3rd Defendant in 2016. The Plaintiff proved his case by a preponderance of the probabilities, while the 3rd Defendant failed to prove her counterclaim. The sale to the 3rd Defendant was null and void under the nemo dat principle.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim succeeds; 3rd Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration of title to Plaintiff for the disputed land
  • Perpetual injunction restraining Defendants from interfering with Plaintiff's land