Gen. Emmanuel Erskine and Another Vrs Victoria Okpoti and Another [2018] GHASC 36 (6 June 2018)

Gen. Emmanuel Erskine and Another Vrs Victoria Okpoti and Another [2018] GHASC 36 (6 June 2018)

The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs' land documents were registered and plotted before the defendants', and that the defendants' title document (Exhibit 3) was not properly stamped or processed in accordance with statutory requirements. The lower courts failed to consider material evidence (Exhibits J and K) and misapplied the nemo dat quod non habet principle. The defendants' document was declared null and void, and the plaintiffs' title was upheld.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 36
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: General Emmanuel A. Erskine; Plaintiff/appellant: Rosamund E. Erskine; Defendant/respondent: Victoria Okpoti; Defendant/respondent: Mallam Musa
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
6 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Registration of Land, Priority of Title, Stamp Duty, Customary Law Grants, Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet, Appeals Process
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Registration of Land Priority of Title Stamp Duty Customary Law Grants Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

General Emmanuel A. Erskine

Plaintiff/appellant

Rosamund E. Erskine

Plaintiff/appellant

Victoria Okpoti

Defendant/respondent

Mallam Musa

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs or defendants have valid title to the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether the registration and stamping requirements under the Stamp Act were complied with by the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the lower courts erred in applying the nemo dat quod non habet principle

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs' land documents were registered and plotted before the defendants', and that the defendants' title document (Exhibit 3) was not properly stamped or processed in accordance with statutory requirements. The lower courts failed to consider material evidence (Exhibits J and K) and misapplied the nemo dat quod non habet principle. The defendants' document was declared null and void, and the plaintiffs' title was upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgments of the Court of Appeal and High Court set aside
  • Declaration of title to the lands described in Schedules 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants jointly and severally