Lamptey Vrs Land Commission and Others [2018] GHASC 58 (28 November 2018)

Lamptey Vrs Land Commission and Others [2018] GHASC 58 (28 November 2018)

The trial judge erred by invoking Article 20(5) of the 1992 Constitution without it being pleaded or argued by the parties, thereby denying them the opportunity to address the issue. The Court of Appeal was correct in reversing the High Court's decision on this ground.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 58
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Mohammed Odartey Lamptey; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Lands Commission; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Apostolic Faith Mission; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Wafa Yaw; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Asare K. Boadi
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
28 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Application of Constitutional Provisions, Trespass, Statutory Duty, Appeals Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Constitutional Law Pleadings Application of Constitutional Provisions Trespass Statutory Duty Appeals Process

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Odartey Lamptey

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Lands Commission

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Apostolic Faith Mission

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Wafa Yaw

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Asare K. Boadi

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred by invoking Article 20(5) of the 1992 Constitution suo motu
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in reversing the High Court's decision based on the judge's reliance on unpleaded constitutional provisions
  3. 3 Whether the judgment was against the weight of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by invoking Article 20(5) of the 1992 Constitution without it being pleaded or argued by the parties, thereby denying them the opportunity to address the issue. The Court of Appeal was correct in reversing the High Court's decision on this ground.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed