Sarpor Vrs Bosomprah [2020] GHASC 72 (2 December 2020)

Sarpor Vrs Bosomprah [2020] GHASC 72 (2 December 2020)

The Appellant, having been on the land as a caretaker and licensee for the Dugbartey family, was not in adverse possession. Therefore, the statutory limitation period did not run in her favour, and the Respondent's action was not statute barred. The Respondent proved better title to the land, and the Court of Appeal was right to grant declaration of title and perpetual injunction.

Citation
Sarpor Vrs Bosomprah [2020] GHASC 72 (2 December 2020)
Parties
Defendant/respondent/appellant: Binga Dugbartey Sarpor; Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Ekow Bosomprah
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
2 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Title to Land, Injunctions
Source Language
eng
Land Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Title to Land Injunctions

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

Parties

Binga Dugbartey Sarpor

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Ekow Bosomprah

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent's action for recovery of land is statute barred under the Limitation Act, 1972 (NRCD 54)
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant's possession constituted adverse possession to defeat the Respondent's title
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting declaration of title and injunction to the Respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant, having been on the land as a caretaker and licensee for the Dugbartey family, was not in adverse possession. Therefore, the statutory limitation period did not run in her favour, and the Respondent's action was not statute barred. The Respondent proved better title to the land, and the Court of Appeal was right to grant declaration of title and perpetual injunction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Orders

  • Declaration of title to the Respondent for the disputed land.
  • Perpetual injunction against the Appellant, her agents, servants, and assigns from interfering with the Respondent's quiet enjoyment of the land.