Owusu Vrs Aziz [2018] GHASC 75 (12 December 2018)

Owusu Vrs Aziz [2018] GHASC 75 (12 December 2018)

The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal that the Osae family are the allodial owners of Otinshi lands, the plaintiff’s grant was valid, and the defendant had no valid title. Defendant’s arguments on statute bar, government acquisition, and identity of land were dismissed as lacking merit. The appeal failed as there was no error or miscarriage of justice in the lower courts’ findings.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 75
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Nana Anti Owusu (suing for himself and on behalf of Sarah Naana Kwansiman - minor); Defendant/appellant/appellant: Alhaji Abdul Aziz alias Papa Wala
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
12 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Allodial Title, Fraudulent Conveyance, Statute of Limitations, Counterclaim
Source Language
English
Land Law Title to Land Allodial Title Fraudulent Conveyance Statute of Limitations Counterclaim

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

Parties

Nana Anti Owusu (suing for himself and on behalf of Sarah Naana Kwansiman - minor)

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Alhaji Abdul Aziz alias Papa Wala

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff’s grantors have valid title to the land described as Otinshi Lands
  2. 2 Whether the subject-matter forms part of Otinshi Lands
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff’s grant was fraudulent

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal that the Osae family are the allodial owners of Otinshi lands, the plaintiff’s grant was valid, and the defendant had no valid title. Defendant’s arguments on statute bar, government acquisition, and identity of land were dismissed as lacking merit. The appeal failed as there was no error or miscarriage of justice in the lower courts’ findings.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed
  • Plaintiff’s title to the disputed land upheld