Mensah Vrs Kwanko Ii [2017] GHASC 22 (14 June 2017)

Mensah Vrs Kwanko Ii [2017] GHASC 22 (14 June 2017)

The Mankralo of Teshie had no authority to convey the disputed land as only the heads of the respective quarters could alienate such lands prior to 1962; the appellant's root of title was void, estoppel could not operate to validate a void grant, and the plea of bona fide purchaser was not available as it was not pleaded or proved.

Citation
[2017] GHASC 22
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Mrs Vincentia Mensah (suing per her attorneys Boniface Lumor and John Allen, substituted by Beatrice Tsotso Adjetey); Defendant/appellant/respondent: Numo Adjei Kwanko II
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
14 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Customary Land Tenure, Estoppel, Bona Fide Purchaser, Pleadings and Appellate Procedure
Source Language
English
Land Law Customary Law Title to Land Customary Land Tenure Estoppel Bona Fide Purchaser Pleadings and Appellate Procedure

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Vincentia Mensah (suing per her attorneys Boniface Lumor and John Allen, substituted by Beatrice Tsotso Adjetey)

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Numo Adjei Kwanko II

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mankralo of Teshie had authority to convey the disputed land prior to 1962
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its evaluation of evidence regarding title and estoppel
  3. 3 Whether the plea of bona fide purchaser for value without notice was available to the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The Mankralo of Teshie had no authority to convey the disputed land as only the heads of the respective quarters could alienate such lands prior to 1962; the appellant's root of title was void, estoppel could not operate to validate a void grant, and the plea of bona fide purchaser was not available as it was not pleaded or proved.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed.