Mensah Vrs Mensah and Another [2018] GHASC 64 (12 December 2018)

Mensah Vrs Mensah and Another [2018] GHASC 64 (12 December 2018)

After partitioning, the land lost its communal family character and became subject to individual control; the plaintiff and defendants are to hold the land as tenants in common, and the lower courts’ concurrent findings are supported by the evidence and not disturbed.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 64
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Korkor Mensah; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Robert Tettey Mensah; Defendant/appellant/appellant: John Tettey Ashiboye
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
12 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Partition of Family Land, Tenancy in Common, Patrilineal Inheritance, Customary Succession, Division of Ancestral Property
Source Language
English
Land Law Customary Law Succession Partition of Family Land Tenancy in Common Patrilineal Inheritance Customary Succession Division of Ancestral Property

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Korkor Mensah

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Robert Tettey Mensah

Defendant/appellant/appellant

John Tettey Ashiboye

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the partitioned family land lost its ancestral character and became subject to individual ownership
  2. 2 Whether the land should be held by the plaintiff and defendants as tenants in common
  3. 3 Whether the patrilineal system of inheritance precludes the plaintiff (a female) from sharing in the land

Ratio Decidendi

After partitioning, the land lost its communal family character and became subject to individual control; the plaintiff and defendants are to hold the land as tenants in common, and the lower courts’ concurrent findings are supported by the evidence and not disturbed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decision and orders of the Court of Appeal affirmed
  • Land to be shared equally between plaintiff and defendants as tenants in common