Kamkam Vrs Amenya [2019] GHASC 54 (23 October 2019)

Kamkam Vrs Amenya [2019] GHASC 54 (23 October 2019)

Plaintiffs lacked capacity to seek to set aside the prior judgment as they were not parties or privies; the defendant's registered title was indefeasible in the absence of fraud; and the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were not perverse or unsupported by evidence. Plaintiffs' possession was unlawful and could not defeat the defendant's registered title.

Citation
[2019] GHASC 54
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Mrs Jennifer Kankam Nantwi; Plaintiff/appellant: Martin Kankam Nantwi; Defendant/respondent: Joseph Amenya
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
23 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud, Land Title Registration, Capacity to Sue, Concurrent Findings, Counterclaim for Declaration of Title
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud Land Title Registration Capacity to Sue Concurrent Findings Counterclaim for Declaration of Title

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Jennifer Kankam Nantwi

Plaintiff/appellant

Martin Kankam Nantwi

Plaintiff/appellant

Joseph Amenya

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs had capacity to seek to set aside a prior judgment for fraud
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's land title certificate conferred indefeasible title
  3. 3 Whether the concurrent findings of fact by lower courts were perverse

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs lacked capacity to seek to set aside the prior judgment as they were not parties or privies; the defendant's registered title was indefeasible in the absence of fraud; and the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were not perverse or unsupported by evidence. Plaintiffs' possession was unlawful and could not defeat the defendant's registered title.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claim dismissed
  • Judgment entered for defendant on counterclaim