ARMAR VSRS ADU (J4/18/2023) [2024] GHASC 32 (17 April 2024)

ARMAR VSRS ADU (J4/18/2023) [2024] GHASC 32 (17 April 2024)

The Supreme Court found, based on a new composite plan and supporting evidence, that the Plaintiff's land is different from the Defendants' land. The Defendants' documents and site plans did not correspond to the disputed land. The Plaintiff's title was supported by registered documents and official searches. The Defendants did not plead or prove adverse possession. The High Court erred in rejecting Plaintiff's expert evidence. The appeal was dismissed and judgment entered for the Plaintiff.

Citation
ARMAR VSRS ADU (J4/18/2023) [2024] GHASC 32 (17 April 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Nathaniel Adjeidu Armar; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Mavis Adu; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Samuel Alabi Bortey; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Sarah Bortiokor Bortey
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
17 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Judgment for Plaintiff. Counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Identity of Land, Expert Evidence, Adverse Possession, Appellate Review
Source Language
eng
Land Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Identity of Land Expert Evidence Adverse Possession Appellate Review

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nathaniel Adjeidu Armar

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Mavis Adu

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Samuel Alabi Bortey

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Sarah Bortiokor Bortey

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the land claimed by Plaintiff and Defendants is the same parcel
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the lands different
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in rejecting Plaintiff's expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found, based on a new composite plan and supporting evidence, that the Plaintiff's land is different from the Defendants' land. The Defendants' documents and site plans did not correspond to the disputed land. The Plaintiff's title was supported by registered documents and official searches. The Defendants did not plead or prove adverse possession. The High Court erred in rejecting Plaintiff's expert evidence. The appeal was dismissed and judgment entered for the Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Judgment for Plaintiff. Counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for Plaintiff on his claim
  • Defendants' counterclaim dismissed