SAMUEL ANKRA VS WILLIAM APIETU AMPOFO (H1/173/2019) [2022] GHACA 76 (12 May 2022)

SAMUEL ANKRA VS WILLIAM APIETU AMPOFO (H1/173/2019) [2022] GHACA 76 (12 May 2022)

The appellant constructed the building with the respondent's licence, which did not require written evidence under the law. The respondent's conduct estopped him from denying the licence. The trial judge erred in law and fact by requiring documentary evidence and misapprehending the evidence. The appellant established entitlement to the building and partial recovery of sums claimed in the counterclaim.

Citation
[2022] GHACA 76
Parties
1st Defendant/appellant: Samuel Ankrah; Plaintiff/respondent: William Apietu Ampofo
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
12 May 2022
Case Number
H1/173/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial court judgment set aside; judgment entered for appellant on counterclaim.
Legal Topics
Licence to Build, Estoppel, Recovery of Possession, Counterclaim for Debt, Conveyancing Act Interpretation
Source Language
English
Land Law Contract Law Customary Law Licence to Build Estoppel Recovery of Possession Counterclaim for Debt Conveyancing Act Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Ankrah

1st Defendant/appellant

William Apietu Ampofo

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant constructed the building on the respondent's land with a valid licence or permission
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in law by requiring documentary evidence for a licence under Section 3(1)(g) of the Conveyancing Act
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was indebted to the appellant for sums claimed in the counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant constructed the building with the respondent's licence, which did not require written evidence under the law. The respondent's conduct estopped him from denying the licence. The trial judge erred in law and fact by requiring documentary evidence and misapprehending the evidence. The appellant established entitlement to the building and partial recovery of sums claimed in the counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial court judgment set aside; judgment entered for appellant on counterclaim.

Orders

  • Appellant declared entitled to the building constructed on respondent's land by licence.
  • Respondent to pay appellant USD 52,808.36 with interest at statutory rate from January 2010 until final payment.