Klu Vrs Darko and Another [2003] GHACA 3 (27 November 2003)

Klu Vrs Darko and Another [2003] GHACA 3 (27 November 2003)

The respondent's root of title was defective because his donor received the land from a chief who had already been destooled and thus lacked authority to make grants. The appellants traced their title to a valid grant from the Nungua Stool. A title certificate does not cure a defective root of title.

Citation
[2003] GHACA 3
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: John K. A. Klu; Defendant/appellant: Mavis Darko; Defendant/appellant: Dr. Kofi Apraku
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
27 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of lower court set aside
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Root of Title, Effect of Destoolment, Registration of Title, Nemo Dat Principle
Source Language
English
Land Law Title to Land Root of Title Effect of Destoolment Registration of Title Nemo Dat Principle

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John K. A. Klu

Plaintiff/respondent

Mavis Darko

Defendant/appellant

Dr. Kofi Apraku

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent had a better root of title to the disputed land than the appellants
  2. 2 Whether a title certificate constitutes state-guaranteed title
  3. 3 Effect of grants made by a destooled chief

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's root of title was defective because his donor received the land from a chief who had already been destooled and thus lacked authority to make grants. The appellants traced their title to a valid grant from the Nungua Stool. A title certificate does not cure a defective root of title.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of lower court set aside

Orders

  • Judgment of the trial court set aside
  • Appellants awarded costs of ¢5 million