Konglo and Another Vrs James and Others [2006] GHACA 15 (10 March 2006)

Konglo and Another Vrs James and Others [2006] GHACA 15 (10 March 2006)

The trial judge correctly found that the boundaries between the parties' lands were settled by historical judgments and confirmed by evidence. The Plaintiff failed to prove exclusive possession or trespass, and the long-standing coexistence of the parties precluded the grant of a perpetual injunction. Both appeals lacked merit and were dismissed.

Citation
[2006] GHACA 15
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Awuku Konglo Bokor; Plaintiff/appellant: Thomas Kwaku Amesimeku; 1st Defendant/respondent: Mankralo James Asafo (Dec.); 2nd Defendant/appellant: Amegedzro Asafo (Dec.); 2nd Defendant/appellant: Mankralo Brentuo Asafo IV
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
10 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; judgment of lower court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Trespass, Injunctions, Boundaries, Possession
Source Language
English
Land Law Title to Land Trespass Injunctions Boundaries Possession

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Awuku Konglo Bokor

Plaintiff/appellant

Thomas Kwaku Amesimeku

Plaintiff/appellant

Mankralo James Asafo (Dec.)

1st Defendant/respondent

Amegedzro Asafo (Dec.)

2nd Defendant/appellant

Mankralo Brentuo Asafo IV

2nd Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in its determination of the boundaries between the parties' lands
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to damages for trespass
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a perpetual injunction against the Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge correctly found that the boundaries between the parties' lands were settled by historical judgments and confirmed by evidence. The Plaintiff failed to prove exclusive possession or trespass, and the long-standing coexistence of the parties precluded the grant of a perpetual injunction. Both appeals lacked merit and were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; judgment of lower court affirmed.

Orders

  • Costs of ¢1,200,000.00 against 1st Defendant and ¢950,000.00 against 2nd Defendant maintained.