Nunoo Vrs Ataglo [2020] GHASC 49 (28 July 2020)

Nunoo Vrs Ataglo [2020] GHASC 49 (28 July 2020)

The plaintiff established her root of title and acts of possession through credible oral and documentary evidence. The defendant's provisional land certificate was issued by mistake as the registrar failed to investigate prior registered interests. The defendant was not in adverse possession, and the Limitation Act did not extinguish the plaintiff's title. The Court of Appeal erred in its findings regarding the location and ownership of the land. The High Court judgment in favour of the plaintiff is restored.

Citation
Nunoo Vrs Ataglo [2020] GHASC 49 (28 July 2020)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Mary Larley Nunoo; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Manase Ataglo
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment set aside; High Court judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Customary Land Grants, Limitation of Actions, Rectification of Land Register, Adverse Possession, Mistake in Land Registration
Source Language
eng
Land Law Property Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Customary Land Grants Limitation of Actions Rectification of Land Register Adverse Possession +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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Larley Nunoo

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Manase Ataglo

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff established title to the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's provisional land certificate conferred indefeasible title
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was in adverse possession extinguishing plaintiff's title under the Limitation Act

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established her root of title and acts of possession through credible oral and documentary evidence. The defendant's provisional land certificate was issued by mistake as the registrar failed to investigate prior registered interests. The defendant was not in adverse possession, and the Limitation Act did not extinguish the plaintiff's title. The Court of Appeal erred in its findings regarding the location and ownership of the land. The High Court judgment in favour of the plaintiff is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment set aside; High Court judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • Declaration of title to the disputed land in favour of the plaintiff
  • Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment