MARTEY VRS MOHAMMED (A9/09/18) [2024] GHADC 12 (12 February 2024)

MARTEY VRS MOHAMMED (A9/09/18) [2024] GHADC 12 (12 February 2024)

Plaintiff had capacity to sue as he permitted Defendant to occupy the premises; Defendant admitted Plaintiff gave him the premises; Defendant denied Plaintiff's title, thus forfeiting right to remain; Plaintiff entitled to recovery and ejection; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as property value exceeded court's monetary limit at time of filing.

Citation
MARTEY VRS MOHAMMED (A9/09/18) [2024] GHADC 12 (12 February 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff: Lemuel Quarshie Martey; Defendant: Inusah Mohammed
Court
ghadc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
12 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Recovery of Possession, Ejectment, Capacity to Sue, Jurisdiction, Counterclaim, Estoppel
Source Language
eng
Land Law Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Recovery of Possession Ejectment Capacity to Sue Jurisdiction Counterclaim +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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lemuel Quarshie Martey

Plaintiff

Inusah Mohammed

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff has capacity to institute the action
  2. 2 Whether the premises in dispute belongs to the Plaintiff or Joseph Moses Nee Tetteh
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff granted the land in dispute to the Defendant or same was granted by Joseph Moses Nee Tetteh

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff had capacity to sue as he permitted Defendant to occupy the premises; Defendant admitted Plaintiff gave him the premises; Defendant denied Plaintiff's title, thus forfeiting right to remain; Plaintiff entitled to recovery and ejection; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as property value exceeded court's monetary limit at time of filing.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Plaintiff shall recover possession of the premises occupied by Defendant.
  • Defendant ordered to vacate the premises forthwith.