Foster Vrs Kede [2022] GHASC 54 (27 July 2022)

Foster Vrs Kede [2022] GHASC 54 (27 July 2022)

The Supreme Court held that the application for extension of time to appeal was valid as it was filed within the six-month statutory window, regardless of when it was heard or granted. The Court of Appeal erred in striking out the appeal as incompetent. On the merits, the respondent did not prove legal title but established possessory title, and the appellant was liable for the demolition. The award of special damages was not properly particularized, so general damages were awarded instead.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 54
Parties
Defendant/appellant/appellant: Nii Lantei Lamptey; Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Shadrach Sossou Kede
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
27 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Possessory Title, Burden of Proof, Damages, Appeals, Extension of Time
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Evidence Possessory Title Burden of Proof Damages Appeals Extension of Time

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nii Lantei Lamptey

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Shadrach Sossou Kede

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the appeal as incompetent for being filed out of time under Rule 9 of C.I. 19
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in granting legal title and damages to the respondent
  3. 3 Whether the evidential burden was properly discharged by the parties

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the application for extension of time to appeal was valid as it was filed within the six-month statutory window, regardless of when it was heard or granted. The Court of Appeal erred in striking out the appeal as incompetent. On the merits, the respondent did not prove legal title but established possessory title, and the appellant was liable for the demolition. The award of special damages was not properly particularized, so general damages were awarded instead.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Court of Appeal judgment set aside; appeal restored
  • High Court’s grant of legal title set aside; possessory ownership granted to respondent