Frimpong Vrs Mr Biney and Another [2016] GHASC 88 (11 May 2016)

Frimpong Vrs Mr Biney and Another [2016] GHASC 88 (11 May 2016)

The plaintiff's registered title covered the disputed land, while the defendants' registered title did not. The evidence did not support the defendants' claim that the disputed land was included in their grant. The requirements for estoppel by acquiescence and laches were not met. The Court of Appeal's finding that the land was first sold to the 2nd defendant was not supported by the evidence. The appeal is allowed and the Court of Appeal's judgment is set aside.

Citation
[2016] GHASC 88
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Ernestina Owusu Frimpong; Defendant/respondent: Mr. Biney; Defendant/respondent: Mrs. Biney
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
11 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal set aside
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Estoppel, Burden of Proof, Appeals, Evidence
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Estoppel Burden of Proof Appeals 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernestina Owusu Frimpong

Plaintiff/appellant

Mr. Biney

Defendant/respondent

Mrs. Biney

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disputed land was validly granted to the plaintiff or the defendants by the common grantor Mrs. Amissah
  2. 2 Whether the defence of estoppel by acquiescence or laches applies to bar the plaintiff's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's registered title covered the disputed land, while the defendants' registered title did not. The evidence did not support the defendants' claim that the disputed land was included in their grant. The requirements for estoppel by acquiescence and laches were not met. The Court of Appeal's finding that the land was first sold to the 2nd defendant was not supported by the evidence. The appeal is allowed and the Court of Appeal's judgment is set aside.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal set aside

Orders

  • Plaintiff declared owner of the disputed land
  • Defendants' counterclaim and estoppel defences dismissed