Aryee Vrs Shell Ghana Ltd and Another [2015] GHASC 102 (22 October 2015)

Aryee Vrs Shell Ghana Ltd and Another [2015] GHASC 102 (22 October 2015)

The co-defendant was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice because they failed to make reasonable inquiries about visible structures and occupation on the land, which constituted notice of the plaintiff's interest. The courts below erred in disregarding critical evidence of possession and notice. The plaintiff was in possession and entitled to ejectment, recovery of possession, unpaid rent, and damages.

Citation
[2015] GHASC 102
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Rosina Aryee; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Shell Ghana Ltd; Co Defendant/respondent/respondent: Fraga Oil
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
22 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet, Bona Fide Purchaser, Priority of Registration, Possession, Notice, Breach of Contract, Ejectment
Source Language
English
Land Law Contract Law Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Bona Fide Purchaser Priority of Registration Possession Notice Breach of Contract +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosina Aryee

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

Shell Ghana Ltd

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Fraga Oil

Co Defendant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the co-defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the land so as to fix the co-defendant with notice
  3. 3 Whether the courts below erred in their evaluation of evidence regarding possession and notice

Ratio Decidendi

The co-defendant was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice because they failed to make reasonable inquiries about visible structures and occupation on the land, which constituted notice of the plaintiff's interest. The courts below erred in disregarding critical evidence of possession and notice. The plaintiff was in possession and entitled to ejectment, recovery of possession, unpaid rent, and damages.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal set aside
  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff for ejectment and recovery of possession against the defendant and co-defendant