Aflah Vrs Boateng [2023] GHASC 58 (22 March 2023)

Aflah Vrs Boateng [2023] GHASC 58 (22 March 2023)

The appeal fails because the Appellant did not demonstrate any error or miscarriage of justice in the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal. The Respondent's title and possession were established by credible evidence, and objections regarding solicitor's licence, capacity, identity of land, and stamping were either procedurally defective or lacked merit. Even excluding the unstamped conveyance, the Respondent's case was more probable than the Appellant's.

Citation
Aflah Vrs Boateng [2023] GHASC 58 (22 March 2023)
Parties
Defendant/appellant/appellant: Nii Aflah; Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Benjamin Kwaku Boateng
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
22 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Adverse Possession, Stamp Duty, Capacity to Sue, Limitation of Actions
Source Language
eng
Property Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Adverse Possession Stamp Duty Capacity to Sue Limitation of Actions

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

Parties

Nii Aflah

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Benjamin Kwaku Boateng

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent's counsel lacked a valid solicitor's licence at the time of issuing the writ and statement of claim
  2. 2 Whether Respondent had capacity to sue without his wife's authority
  3. 3 Whether the judgment was against the weight of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal fails because the Appellant did not demonstrate any error or miscarriage of justice in the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal. The Respondent's title and possession were established by credible evidence, and objections regarding solicitor's licence, capacity, identity of land, and stamping were either procedurally defective or lacked merit. Even excluding the unstamped conveyance, the Respondent's case was more probable than the Appellant's.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of High Court restored
  • Cost of Twenty-Five thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS 25,000.00) awarded to Respondent against Appellant