Wiafe Vrs Twum-baah [2005] GHACA 27 (15 July 2005)

Wiafe Vrs Twum-baah [2005] GHACA 27 (15 July 2005)

The appeal was dismissed because the respondent's pleadings did not contain clear and unequivocal admissions to warrant judgment on admissions. The plea of estoppel per rem judicatam was not specifically denied and is deemed admitted. The trial judge exercised his discretion correctly under Order 32 r. 6, and no error of law or misdirection was demonstrated by the appellant.

Citation
[2005] GHACA 27
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Kwame Wiafe Dankwa; Defendant/respondent: Opanin Twum-Baah
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
15 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Ruling (motion for Judgment on Admissions)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judgment on Admissions, Estoppel Per Rem Judicatam (res Judicata), Interpretation of Pleadings, Family/chieftaincy Disputes
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Customary Law Judgment on Admissions Estoppel Per Rem Judicatam (res Judicata) Interpretation of Pleadings Family/chieftaincy Disputes

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kwame Wiafe Dankwa

Plaintiff/appellant

Opanin Twum-Baah

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Ruling (motion for Judgment on Admissions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing judgment on admissions under Order 32 r. 6 of L.N. 140A
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings contained clear and unequivocal admissions by the respondent
  3. 3 Whether the plea of estoppel per rem judicatam was properly raised and not specifically denied

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the respondent's pleadings did not contain clear and unequivocal admissions to warrant judgment on admissions. The plea of estoppel per rem judicatam was not specifically denied and is deemed admitted. The trial judge exercised his discretion correctly under Order 32 r. 6, and no error of law or misdirection was demonstrated by the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Case remitted to Circuit Court Koforidua for hearing on the merits