Boakye & Anor Vrs Asiedu [2021] GHASC 127 (15 December 2021)

Boakye & Anor Vrs Asiedu [2021] GHASC 127 (15 December 2021)

The Supreme Court found the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness inconsistent and unreliable regarding allocation of land to Maame Kyerewaa. The defendants' documentary evidence (receipt) was authentic and corroborated by the plaintiff's own witness, establishing that Kingsley Boakye purchased the land. The house was built by Kingsley Boakye and his wife from their resources, with no evidence of substantial family contribution. The property was not family property. Plaintiff lacked capacity to sue on behalf of the family. The High Court's decision in favor of the defendants was correct and is restored.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 127
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Mrs Theresa Boakye; Defendant/appellant: Frank Asiedu Boakye; Defendant/appellant: Napoleon Twum Barimah; Plaintiff/respondent: Opanin Kwame Asiedu
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
15 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment restored; Court of Appeal judgment reversed.
Legal Topics
Ownership of Land, Family Property, Burden of Proof, Documentary Evidence, Capacity to Sue, Joint Ownership, Customary Law
Source Language
English
Land Law Succession Evidence Ownership of Land Family Property Burden of Proof Documentary Evidence Capacity to Sue +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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Theresa Boakye

Defendant/appellant

Frank Asiedu Boakye

Defendant/appellant

Napoleon Twum Barimah

Defendant/appellant

Opanin Kwame Asiedu

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who acquired and owns the disputed land and house?
  2. 2 Whether the property is family property or self-acquired property of the deceased?
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff had capacity to sue on behalf of the family?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness inconsistent and unreliable regarding allocation of land to Maame Kyerewaa. The defendants' documentary evidence (receipt) was authentic and corroborated by the plaintiff's own witness, establishing that Kingsley Boakye purchased the land. The house was built by Kingsley Boakye and his wife from their resources, with no evidence of substantial family contribution. The property was not family property. Plaintiff lacked capacity to sue on behalf of the family. The High Court's decision in favor of the defendants was correct and is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment restored; Court of Appeal judgment reversed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to yield up vacant possession of House Number J2 to the 1st defendant.
  • All counterclaims by defendants granted.