Jaas Company Ltd and Another Vrs Apau and Another [2009] GHASC 20 (21 January 2009)

Jaas Company Ltd and Another Vrs Apau and Another [2009] GHASC 20 (21 January 2009)

The appellants failed to prove their title to the land due to lack of clear identification and contradictory evidence, especially regarding the site plan. The respondents, on the other hand, proved their counterclaim with valid documents and oral evidence. There is no basis for a retrial as the appellants' case is fundamentally flawed and no useful purpose would be served. The concurrent findings of the lower courts are supported by the evidence and law.

Citation
[2009] GHASC 20
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: JAAS Co. Limited; Co Plaintiff/appellant: Togbe Hornomenu; Defendant/respondent: Edward Apau; Co Defendant/respondent: Madam Akua Achempomaa
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
21 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Counterclaim, Burden of Proof, Appellate Review, Retrial
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Counterclaim Burden of Proof Appellate Review Retrial

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JAAS Co. Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Togbe Hornomenu

Co Plaintiff/appellant

Edward Apau

Defendant/respondent

Madam Akua Achempomaa

Co Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in dismissing the appellants' claim to land and upholding the respondents' counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether a retrial should be ordered due to alleged unsatisfactory trial and uncertainty in land description

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to prove their title to the land due to lack of clear identification and contradictory evidence, especially regarding the site plan. The respondents, on the other hand, proved their counterclaim with valid documents and oral evidence. There is no basis for a retrial as the appellants' case is fundamentally flawed and no useful purpose would be served. The concurrent findings of the lower courts are supported by the evidence and law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants' claims dismissed
  • Respondents' counterclaim affirmed