Ofei Vrs Darko and Others [2018] GHASC 6 (31 January 2018)

Ofei Vrs Darko and Others [2018] GHASC 6 (31 January 2018)

The majority of the Supreme Court found that the property was owned by Kwabena Apenteng, as evidenced by authentic documentary evidence, and the defendants' claims of resulting trust and adverse possession were not supported by the facts. The sale to the plaintiff was valid, and the appeal by the defendants was dismissed, affirming the Court of Appeal's decision. However, there was a dissenting opinion that would have restored the trial court's judgment for the defendants, finding a resulting trust and adverse possession in their favour.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 6
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Kwame Ofei; 1st Defendant/respondent/appellant: Mrs Janet Darko; 1st Co Defendant/respondent/appellant: The Trustees of Rexford Aye Darko; 2nd Co Defendant/respondent/appellant: Okofoh Estates Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
31 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (by majority); Court of Appeal judgment affirmed; dissent would have allowed appeal and restored trial court judgment for defendants.
Legal Topics
Ownership of Land, Resulting Trust, Adverse Possession, Burden of Proof, Appeals, Fraud, Caveat Emptor
Source Language
English
Property Law Trusts Civil Procedure Ownership of Land Resulting Trust Adverse Possession Burden of Proof Appeals +2 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kwame Ofei

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Mrs Janet Darko

1st Defendant/respondent/appellant

The Trustees of Rexford Aye Darko

1st Co Defendant/respondent/appellant

Okofoh Estates Ltd.

2nd Co Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the property in dispute was owned by Kwabena Apenteng or Rexford Aye Darko
  2. 2 Whether a resulting trust existed with Kwabena Apenteng as legal owner and Rexford Aye Darko as beneficial owner
  3. 3 Whether the claim was statute barred by adverse possession

Ratio Decidendi

The majority of the Supreme Court found that the property was owned by Kwabena Apenteng, as evidenced by authentic documentary evidence, and the defendants' claims of resulting trust and adverse possession were not supported by the facts. The sale to the plaintiff was valid, and the appeal by the defendants was dismissed, affirming the Court of Appeal's decision. However, there was a dissenting opinion that would have restored the trial court's judgment for the defendants, finding a resulting trust and adverse possession in their favour.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (by majority); Court of Appeal judgment affirmed; dissent would have allowed appeal and restored trial court judgment for defendants.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff; recovery of possession of house No. C822/4 (formerly Russian Embassy)
  • Order of ejection against the 1st defendant