Penepah Vrs Azor & 2 Ors [2022] GHASC 50 (27 July 2022)

Penepah Vrs Azor & 2 Ors [2022] GHASC 50 (27 July 2022)

The Supreme Court held that the 1998 High Court judgment was final and binding, that the creation of Plot 35C was illegal, and that the plaintiff was a trespasser. The equitable interest granted to the plaintiff in 1998 was not perpetual and ceased when he abandoned the property. The defendants were entitled to recovery of possession as the plaintiff had forfeited any interest by challenging the defendants' title and vacating the property.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 50
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Felix Penepah; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Ayindenaba Azor; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Ayuobi Azor; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Akalbilla Azor
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
27 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision set aside; defendants' counter-claim granted
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Equitable Interest, Counter Claim, Recovery of Possession, Licensee and Licensor Relationship, Procedural Irregularity
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Res Judicata Equitable Interest Counter Claim Recovery of Possession Licensee and Licensor Relationship Procedural Irregularity

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Felix Penepah

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Ayindenaba Azor

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Ayuobi Azor

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Akalbilla Azor

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is estopped per rem judicatam from re-litigating title to Plot 35A/35C
  2. 2 Whether the 1998 High Court judgment created a perpetual equitable interest in favour of the plaintiff over the disputed property
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are entitled to recovery of possession of Plot 35A

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the 1998 High Court judgment was final and binding, that the creation of Plot 35C was illegal, and that the plaintiff was a trespasser. The equitable interest granted to the plaintiff in 1998 was not perpetual and ceased when he abandoned the property. The defendants were entitled to recovery of possession as the plaintiff had forfeited any interest by challenging the defendants' title and vacating the property.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision set aside; defendants' counter-claim granted

Orders

  • Defendants recover possession of the portion of plot number 35A where plaintiff is laying claim to.