BADU VRS POKU & 2 OTHERS (A1/26/2021) [2024] GHACC 119 (12 April 2024)

BADU VRS POKU & 2 OTHERS (A1/26/2021) [2024] GHACC 119 (12 April 2024)

Rosina Ama Boamah directed that any cocoa farm she cultivated was to devolve exclusively to her daughters. Evidence established she cultivated cocoa, which was later expanded by S.A Dapaah. Plaintiff failed to prove the identity of the disputed cocoa farm and did not distinguish between portions cultivated by his mother and brother. The uncultivated portion of the land devolves to all children as tenants in common. Plaintiff's claim fails.

Citation
BADU VRS POKU & 2 OTHERS (A1/26/2021) [2024] GHACC 119 (12 April 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kwabena Badu; Defendant: Vida Adusei Poku; Defendant: Ama Boamah; Defendant: Elizabeth Dapaah
Court
ghacc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
12 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Land/succession / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Inheritance, Customary Law, Co Ownership, Capacity to Sue, Customary Arbitration
Source Language
eng
Succession Land Law Family Law Inheritance Customary Law Co Ownership Capacity to Sue Customary Arbitration

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kwabena Badu

Plaintiff

Vida Adusei Poku

Defendant

Ama Boamah

Defendant

Elizabeth Dapaah

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Land/succession / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rosina Ama Boamah directed that the land in dispute should devolve onto the female children alone upon her demise
  2. 2 Whether Plaintiff had capacity to institute the action
  3. 3 Whether arbitration was resolved in favour of Defendants or Plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

Rosina Ama Boamah directed that any cocoa farm she cultivated was to devolve exclusively to her daughters. Evidence established she cultivated cocoa, which was later expanded by S.A Dapaah. Plaintiff failed to prove the identity of the disputed cocoa farm and did not distinguish between portions cultivated by his mother and brother. The uncultivated portion of the land devolves to all children as tenants in common. Plaintiff's claim fails.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's action dismissed
  • Cost of GH¢4,000.00 awarded against Plaintiff