Achiampong Vrs State Housing Company Ltd and Others [2022] GHASC 12 (9 February 2022)

Achiampong Vrs State Housing Company Ltd and Others [2022] GHASC 12 (9 February 2022)

The plaintiff breached the covenants of her lease by failing to develop the land and pay rent within the stipulated period. The 1st defendant lawfully terminated the lease and re-entered the land under Act 322 after giving proper notice. The plaintiff's rights in the land were extinguished, and subsequent grants to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 12
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Mrs. Margaret Y. N. Achiampong; 1st Defendant/respondent/respondent: State Housing Company Ltd.; 2nd Defendant/respondent/respondent: Mr. Kudom; Respondent: Nii Afotey Ahwiah II; Respondent: Clement Bortey
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
9 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lease Termination, Forfeiture of Lease, Statutory Interpretation, Fraud, Ejectment, Burden of Proof
Source Language
english
Land Law Contract Law Lease Termination Forfeiture of Lease Statutory Interpretation Fraud Ejectment Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. Margaret Y. N. Achiampong

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

State Housing Company Ltd.

1st Defendant/respondent/respondent

Mr. Kudom

2nd Defendant/respondent/respondent

Nii Afotey Ahwiah II

Respondent

Clement Bortey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal's judgment was against the weight of evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal misapplied legal principles regarding fraud, estoppel, frustration, nemo dat quod non habet, and caveat emptor
  3. 3 Whether the State Housing Corporation (Ejectment) Act, 1970 (Act 322) applied to the plaintiff's lease and its termination

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff breached the covenants of her lease by failing to develop the land and pay rent within the stipulated period. The 1st defendant lawfully terminated the lease and re-entered the land under Act 322 after giving proper notice. The plaintiff's rights in the land were extinguished, and subsequent grants to third parties were valid. The appeal failed as the findings of the lower courts were supported by the evidence and correct application of the law.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed.