Zraik Vrs Translas Ltd and Others [2017] GHASC 33 (10 May 2017)

Zraik Vrs Translas Ltd and Others [2017] GHASC 33 (10 May 2017)

The Supreme Court held that the issue of ownership of the disputed properties had already been conclusively determined in favour of the appellant in a previous suit between the same parties or their privies. The respondent, as a privy to Cream Timbers, was estopped per rem judicata from re-litigating the issue. The lower courts erred in failing to address this and their judgments were set aside.

Citation
[2017] GHASC 33
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Roula Zraik (suing as the majority shareholder in Cream Timber Moulding Company Ltd.); 1st Defendant/respondent/respondent: Translas Limited; 2nd Defendant/respondent/respondent: Hussein Zraik; 3rd Defendant/appellant/appellant: Millicent Appah
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
10 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Estoppel, Company Property Ownership, Appeals, Injunctions, Trespass
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Company Law Res Judicata Estoppel Company Property Ownership Appeals Injunctions +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roula Zraik (suing as the majority shareholder in Cream Timber Moulding Company Ltd.)

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Translas Limited

1st Defendant/respondent/respondent

Hussein Zraik

2nd Defendant/respondent/respondent

Millicent Appah

3rd Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ownership of the disputed properties had already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction as at the time the respondent instituted the action
  2. 2 Whether the principle of res judicata applies to bar the respondent from re-litigating ownership of the properties
  3. 3 Whether the lower courts erred in nullifying transactions entered into by Cream Timbers and Dalebrook Ltd on grounds of lack of authority

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the issue of ownership of the disputed properties had already been conclusively determined in favour of the appellant in a previous suit between the same parties or their privies. The respondent, as a privy to Cream Timbers, was estopped per rem judicata from re-litigating the issue. The lower courts erred in failing to address this and their judgments were set aside.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court as affirmed by the Court of Appeal is set aside.