NANA SARFO KANTANKA & ANOR VRS YAW BADU & 2 ORS (C1/08/2020) [2024] GHAHC 400 (26 November 2024)

NANA SARFO KANTANKA & ANOR VRS YAW BADU & 2 ORS (C1/08/2020) [2024] GHAHC 400 (26 November 2024)

Plaintiffs failed to prove allodial title or exclusive possession to the disputed land; no valid customary arbitration award was proved in their favour; evidence established the land is stool land with families holding usufructuary interests; 1st defendant proved his counterclaim by tracing root of title, acts of possession, and holding a valid lease from the Obo stool. Title to the disputed 11.31 acres is declared for the 1st defendant.

Citation
NANA SARFO KANTANKA & ANOR VRS YAW BADU & 2 ORS (C1/08/2020) [2024] GHAHC 400 (26 November 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff: Nana Sarfo Kantanka; Plaintiff: Beatrice Efua Tanor; Defendant: Yaw Badu; Defendant: Madam Yaa Akwaa; Defendant: Osabarima Nana Yeboah Afari Obuagyan II
Court
ghahc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
26 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Land/title/declaration / Judgment After Trial, Including Counterclaim
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; 1st defendant's counterclaim upheld.
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title to Land, Customary Arbitration, Stool Lands, Usufructuary Interest, Counterclaim, Burden of Proof
Source Language
eng
Land Law Customary Law Civil Procedure Declaration of Title to Land Customary Arbitration Stool Lands Usufructuary Interest 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 4 Authorities cited 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nana Sarfo Kantanka

Plaintiff

Beatrice Efua Tanor

Plaintiff

Yaw Badu

Defendant

Madam Yaa Akwaa

Defendant

Osabarima Nana Yeboah Afari Obuagyan II

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Land/title/declaration / Judgment After Trial, Including Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding or valid arbitration between the plaintiff’s family and the 1st defendant
  2. 2 Whether all Obo Kwahu lands are stool lands
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs’ family land has been encroached upon by the defendants and title should be declared to plaintiffs

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs failed to prove allodial title or exclusive possession to the disputed land; no valid customary arbitration award was proved in their favour; evidence established the land is stool land with families holding usufructuary interests; 1st defendant proved his counterclaim by tracing root of title, acts of possession, and holding a valid lease from the Obo stool. Title to the disputed 11.31 acres is declared for the 1st defendant.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; 1st defendant's counterclaim upheld.

Orders

  • Reliefs a, b, c, d, e, and g of plaintiffs’ claim dismissed as against defendants.
  • 1st defendant’s counterclaim reliefs a, b, c, and d upheld.