ANSU VRS MENSAH (C12/010/2023) [2024] GHAHC 354 (26 March 2024)

ANSU VRS MENSAH (C12/010/2023) [2024] GHAHC 354 (26 March 2024)

The trial court's findings were supported by sufficient evidence, including site plans, locus inspection report, and witness testimony. The Appellant failed to demonstrate any lapses or misapplication of evidence. The judgment and consequential orders are affirmed.

Citation
ANSU VRS MENSAH (C12/010/2023) [2024] GHAHC 354 (26 March 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff / Respondent: Ansu Adusa Gordon; Defendant / Appellant: Kwasi Aning Mensah
Court
ghahc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
26 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment and consequential orders affirmed.
Legal Topics
Land Boundary Dispute, Trespass, Burden of Proof, Appeal Against Weight of Evidence
Source Language
eng
Property Law Civil Procedure Land Boundary Dispute Trespass Burden of Proof Appeal Against Weight of Evidence

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ansu Adusa Gordon

Plaintiff / Respondent

Kwasi Aning Mensah

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment of the trial court was against the weight of evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant trespassed onto the Respondent's land
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent established root of title and dimensions of the disputed plot

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court's findings were supported by sufficient evidence, including site plans, locus inspection report, and witness testimony. The Appellant failed to demonstrate any lapses or misapplication of evidence. The judgment and consequential orders are affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment and consequential orders affirmed.

Orders

  • Judgment of trial Magistrate dated 16th August, 2022 affirmed.
  • Damages for trespass (GHS2,000.00) and costs (GHS3,000.00) against Defendant upheld.