JAJI VRS. BOATENG (J4/68/2021) [2022] GHASC 124 (6 April 2022)

JAJI VRS. BOATENG (J4/68/2021) [2022] GHASC 124 (6 April 2022)

The Supreme Court held that the Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of regularity of the judicial sale, did not prove ownership of the property, and did not establish any irregularity or illegality in the sale process. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were supported by the evidence. There was no legal duty on the Plaintiff to investigate the judgment debtor’s title before purchase at a judicial auction. The Defendant was not entitled to a counterclaim as he failed to establish ownership on the evidence.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 124
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Kamaru Jaji (suing per his lawful attorney Sikiru Jaji); Defendant/appellant/appellant: Paul Boateng
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
6 April 2022
Case Number
J4/68/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed; lower court judgments affirmed
Legal Topics
Judicial Sale, Auction, Title to Property, Interpleader, Counterclaim, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Judicial Sale Auction Title to Property Interpleader Counterclaim Burden of Proof

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

Parties

Kamaru Jaji (suing per his lawful attorney Sikiru Jaji)

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Paul Boateng

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judicial sale of the property was regular, irregular, or illegal
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant proved ownership of the property
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant was entitled to a counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of regularity of the judicial sale, did not prove ownership of the property, and did not establish any irregularity or illegality in the sale process. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were supported by the evidence. There was no legal duty on the Plaintiff to investigate the judgment debtor’s title before purchase at a judicial auction. The Defendant was not entitled to a counterclaim as he failed to establish ownership on the evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; lower court judgments affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment of the High Court dated 9th October 2019 affirmed