Tenassa Pharmarcutical & Trading Co Ltd Vrs Koanda [2014] GHASC 152 (19 March 2014)

Tenassa Pharmarcutical & Trading Co Ltd Vrs Koanda [2014] GHASC 152 (19 March 2014)

The leasehold was acquired by E. B. Asante personally, not Asante Chemical Store. The plaintiff failed to prove succession or ownership due to lack of evidence and discrepancies in the company name. The defendant established purchase and possession of the property. The lower courts erred in considering extrinsic evidence contrary to the conclusive presumption of the written lease. The appeal succeeds and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Citation
[2014] GHASC 152
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Tenassa Pharmaceutical and Trading Co. Ltd.; Defendant/appellant: Mr. Issaka Koanda
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
19 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; lower court judgment set aside; plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Ownership of Leasehold Property, Capacity to Sue, Construction of Written Instruments, Burden of Proof, Corporate Identity Discrepancies
Source Language
English
Property Law Evidence Law Corporate Law Ownership of Leasehold Property Capacity to Sue Construction of Written Instruments Burden of Proof Corporate Identity Discrepancies

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tenassa Pharmaceutical and Trading Co. Ltd.

Plaintiff/respondent

Mr. Issaka Koanda

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who acquired the leasehold in the disputed property?
  2. 2 Was there a valid sale of the leasehold property to the defendant?
  3. 3 Did the plaintiff have capacity to sue based on corporate succession and name discrepancies?

Ratio Decidendi

The leasehold was acquired by E. B. Asante personally, not Asante Chemical Store. The plaintiff failed to prove succession or ownership due to lack of evidence and discrepancies in the company name. The defendant established purchase and possession of the property. The lower courts erred in considering extrinsic evidence contrary to the conclusive presumption of the written lease. The appeal succeeds and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; lower court judgment set aside; plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 17 May 2012 set aside
  • Order dismissing the plaintiff’s claim substituted