Dwamena Vrs Otoo and Others [2019] GHASC 49 (12 June 2019)

Dwamena Vrs Otoo and Others [2019] GHASC 49 (12 June 2019)

The Supreme Court took judicial notice of its prior judgment in Otoo v Otoo, which conclusively determined that Edward Kabu Otoo died testate and his properties, including the disputed land, were devised by will. Therefore, the 1st defendant had no interest or capacity as customary successor, was not a proper party, and his counterclaim failed. With only the plaintiff and a nominal defendant (Lands Commission with no interest), the proceedings were not properly constituted to determine ownership, and the suit was struck out.

Citation
[2019] GHASC 49
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/cross Appellant/respondent: Rowland Kofi Dwamena; 1st Defendant/appellant/cross Respondent/appellant: Richard Nartey Otoo; 2nd Defendant/appellant/cross Respondent/appellant: The Regional Lands Officer, Lands Commission, Accra
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
12 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; suit struck out
Legal Topics
Judicial Notice, Estoppel, Res Judicata, Misjoinder, Title to Land
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Evidence Judicial Notice Estoppel Res Judicata Misjoinder Title to Land

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rowland Kofi Dwamena

Plaintiff/respondent/cross Appellant/respondent

Richard Nartey Otoo

1st Defendant/appellant/cross Respondent/appellant

The Regional Lands Officer, Lands Commission, Accra

2nd Defendant/appellant/cross Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to take judicial notice of a prior Supreme Court judgment affecting the parties' interests in the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant had capacity to defend or counterclaim based on prior adjudication
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings were properly constituted after striking out the 1st defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court took judicial notice of its prior judgment in Otoo v Otoo, which conclusively determined that Edward Kabu Otoo died testate and his properties, including the disputed land, were devised by will. Therefore, the 1st defendant had no interest or capacity as customary successor, was not a proper party, and his counterclaim failed. With only the plaintiff and a nominal defendant (Lands Commission with no interest), the proceedings were not properly constituted to determine ownership, and the suit was struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; suit struck out

Orders

  • Judgments of the High Court dated 14th April, 2015 and Court of Appeal dated 1st June, 2017 set aside
  • 1st defendant struck out as a party; his counterclaim dismissed