Sam and Others Vrs Unilever Ghana Ltd and Others [2016] GHASC 59 (6 June 2016)

Sam and Others Vrs Unilever Ghana Ltd and Others [2016] GHASC 59 (6 June 2016)

The Supreme Court found that the disputed property, Sam's Hill, was self-acquired by W. E. Sam (Snr), properly devised to Thomas Birch Freeman Sam and his heirs, and that the plaintiffs, as descendants, have capacity and entitlement to the reliefs sought. The Court rejected the defence of laches and acquiescence, finding the plaintiffs acted diligently upon discovery of the fraud. The Court set aside the Court of Appeal's decision and restored the High Court's judgment in favour of the plaintiffs.

Citation
[2016] GHASC 59
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Alec Grant Sam; Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Jeannie Theresa Sam; Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Juliana Sam; 1st Defendant: Unilever Ghana Ltd; 2nd Defendant/appellant/respondent: Nana Afedu IV (substituted by Stephen Folley); 3rd Defendant/appellant/respondent: Kodwo X. Y. Ahlijah
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
6 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Reversionary Interest, Will Construction, Fraud, Laches and Acquiescence
Source Language
English
Land Law Succession Law Reversionary Interest Will Construction Fraud Laches and Acquiescence

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alec Grant Sam

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Jeannie Theresa Sam

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Juliana Sam

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Unilever Ghana Ltd

1st Defendant

Nana Afedu IV (substituted by Stephen Folley)

2nd Defendant/appellant/respondent

Kodwo X. Y. Ahlijah

3rd Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have reversionary title to the disputed land known as Sam's Hill
  2. 2 Whether the disputed land was properly devised by will to Thomas Birch Freeman Sam and his heirs
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' dealings with the land were fraudulent

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the disputed property, Sam's Hill, was self-acquired by W. E. Sam (Snr), properly devised to Thomas Birch Freeman Sam and his heirs, and that the plaintiffs, as descendants, have capacity and entitlement to the reliefs sought. The Court rejected the defence of laches and acquiescence, finding the plaintiffs acted diligently upon discovery of the fraud. The Court set aside the Court of Appeal's decision and restored the High Court's judgment in favour of the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the Court of Appeal set aside
  • High Court judgment restored