ANKOMAH VRS QUARSHIE (H1/175/20) [2021] GHACA 25 (29 April 2021)

ANKOMAH VRS QUARSHIE (H1/175/20) [2021] GHACA 25 (29 April 2021)

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge correctly found that the plaintiff had proved his case on a balance of probabilities, had been in undisturbed possession for over 12 years, extinguishing the defendant’s claim under the Limitation Act, and the defendant’s failure to call the surveyor rendered the expert evidence inadmissible. The plaintiff’s title was indefeasible and properly registered, and the trial judge’s findings were supported by the evidence.

Citation
[2021] GHACA 25
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Eddie Kusi Ankomah; Plaintiff/respondent: Sam Quarshie
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
29 April 2021
Case Number
H1/175/20
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Trespass, Limitation of Actions, Admissibility of Evidence, Expert Evidence
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Trespass Limitation of Actions Admissibility of Evidence Expert Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eddie Kusi Ankomah

Defendant/appellant

Sam Quarshie

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff’s land covers an area of 0.46 of an acre
  2. 2 Whether part of plaintiff’s land has been taken over by a road
  3. 3 Whether the disputed portions of land belong to plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge correctly found that the plaintiff had proved his case on a balance of probabilities, had been in undisturbed possession for over 12 years, extinguishing the defendant’s claim under the Limitation Act, and the defendant’s failure to call the surveyor rendered the expert evidence inadmissible. The plaintiff’s title was indefeasible and properly registered, and the trial judge’s findings were supported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court affirmed
  • Plaintiff awarded damages of Gh¢10,000 for trespass