Kangberee Vrs Mohammed [2012] GHASC 42 (4 July 2012)

Kangberee Vrs Mohammed [2012] GHASC 42 (4 July 2012)

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s root of title was superior, as his vendor had acquired title before the defendant’s vendor, and the latter had no interest to convey at the material time. The principle of nemo dat quod non habet rendered the defendant’s title null and void. The Land Title Certificate issued to the plaintiff was valid and unchallenged by any cogent evidence of fraud or mistake. The evidence of the court-appointed surveyor was incoherent and unreliable, and the Court of Appeal was correct to disregard it. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal in favour of the plaintiff was affirmed.

Citation
[2012] GHASC 42
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Saanbaye Basilde Kangberee (suing per his lawful attorney Theresa Kangberee); Defendant/respondent/appellant: Alhaji Seidu Mohamed
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
4 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed in favour of the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Trespass, Land Registration, Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet, Survey Evidence
Source Language
English
Land Law Title to Land Trespass Land Registration Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Survey 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saanbaye Basilde Kangberee (suing per his lawful attorney Theresa Kangberee)

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Alhaji Seidu Mohamed

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in preferring the root of title of the plaintiff as opposed to that of the defendant and in their application of the principle of nemo dat quod non habet
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in law not to rely on the survey plan and evidence of the court-appointed surveyor
  3. 3 Whether the reliance placed by the Court of Appeal on the Land Title Certificate and the plaintiff’s root of title was wrong in law

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s root of title was superior, as his vendor had acquired title before the defendant’s vendor, and the latter had no interest to convey at the material time. The principle of nemo dat quod non habet rendered the defendant’s title null and void. The Land Title Certificate issued to the plaintiff was valid and unchallenged by any cogent evidence of fraud or mistake. The evidence of the court-appointed surveyor was incoherent and unreliable, and the Court of Appeal was correct to disregard it. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal in favour of the plaintiff was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Plaintiff declared owner of the disputed land.
  • Defendant restrained from interfering with plaintiff’s land.