HAYFRON-BENJAMIN VRS. PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER (J4/61/2022) [2022] GHASC 120 (14 December 2022)

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN VRS. PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER (J4/61/2022) [2022] GHASC 120 (14 December 2022)

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, not being a party to the original proceedings and only seeking to intervene after final judgment, had no locus standi to set aside the judgment or be joined; the proper procedure for intervention by a stranger was not followed; the absence of a transfer order between judges did not affect jurisdiction as administrative acts of the Chief Justice are presumed regular; and no proprietary estoppel or right of first refusal was established. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 120
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Jeanette Hayfron-Benjamin; Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Prime Insurance Company Ltd.; Defendant: Lands Commission
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
14 December 2022
Case Number
J4/61/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Affirming High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Default Judgment, Possession of Immovable Property, Jurisdiction of Judges, Proprietary Estoppel, Right of First Refusal, Specific Performance
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Joinder of Parties Default Judgment Possession of Immovable Property Jurisdiction of Judges Proprietary Estoppel Right of First Refusal +1 more

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeanette Hayfron-Benjamin

Applicant/appellant

Prime Insurance Company Ltd.

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Lands Commission

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Affirming High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person in possession but not joined as a party can set aside a default judgment after final judgment has been delivered
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a transfer order between judges affects jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had locus standi to be joined or set aside the judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, not being a party to the original proceedings and only seeking to intervene after final judgment, had no locus standi to set aside the judgment or be joined; the proper procedure for intervention by a stranger was not followed; the absence of a transfer order between judges did not affect jurisdiction as administrative acts of the Chief Justice are presumed regular; and no proprietary estoppel or right of first refusal was established. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All grounds of appeal dismissed
  • Judgment of Court of Appeal and High Court affirmed