Kwaku and Others Vrs Otubu Iv [2021] GHASC 86 (7 July 2021)

Kwaku and Others Vrs Otubu Iv [2021] GHASC 86 (7 July 2021)

The appellants' family, though not owners, have acquired a customary freehold or usufructuary interest in the 14.06 square miles of the disputed land by long, undisturbed possession with the permission of the respondent's family, the allodial owner. Their rights are more than those of mere licensees and cannot be restrained from developing or alienating the land, subject to recognition of the allodial owner's title. The award of damages for trespass and the perpetual injunction were improper as their possession was not adverse or trespassory.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 86
Parties
1st Defendant/appellant/appellant: Ebenezer Kwaku; 2nd Defendant/appellant/appellant: Numo Teila Kwadwo; Defendant: Prince Mart Limited; Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Mankralo Tetteh Otibu IV
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
7 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Allodial Title, Customary Freehold, Usufructuary Rights, Limitation of Actions, Trespass, Damages, Injunction
Source Language
English
Land Law Customary Law Allodial Title Customary Freehold Usufructuary Rights Limitation of Actions Trespass Damages +1 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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ebenezer Kwaku

1st Defendant/appellant/appellant

Numo Teila Kwadwo

2nd Defendant/appellant/appellant

Prince Mart Limited

Defendant

Mankralo Tetteh Otibu IV

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' family acquired title or customary freehold interest in the disputed land by long possession
  2. 2 Whether the award of damages for trespass and the perpetual injunction against the appellants were proper
  3. 3 Whether the Limitation Act (NRCD 54) could be relied upon by the appellants though not specifically pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants' family, though not owners, have acquired a customary freehold or usufructuary interest in the 14.06 square miles of the disputed land by long, undisturbed possession with the permission of the respondent's family, the allodial owner. Their rights are more than those of mere licensees and cannot be restrained from developing or alienating the land, subject to recognition of the allodial owner's title. The award of damages for trespass and the perpetual injunction were improper as their possession was not adverse or trespassory.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Injunction order against appellants set aside
  • Award of damages for trespass set aside