Siriboe & Anor Vrs Amponsah [2022] GHASC 102 (16 November 2022)

Siriboe & Anor Vrs Amponsah [2022] GHASC 102 (16 November 2022)

The defendant proved, by unrebutted presumption of regularity and official evidence, that the disputed land is state land validly leased to her. The plaintiffs failed to rebut this presumption or establish that their grantors had title to the land. Prior judgments and alleged releases did not confer title on the plaintiffs' grantors. The burden to disprove the state's title was on the plaintiffs, which they failed to discharge.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 102
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Papa Yaw Siriboe; Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Papita Siriboe; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Agnes Amponsah
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
16 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Title to Land, State Land, Burden of Proof, Presumption of Regularity, Counterclaim, Appeals
Source Language
English
Land Law Evidence Title to Land State Land Burden of Proof Presumption of Regularity Counterclaim Appeals

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Papa Yaw Siriboe

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Papita Siriboe

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Agnes Amponsah

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disputed land is state land vested in the President and managed by the Lands Commission or private property validly conveyed to the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the burden of proof and presumption of regularity
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' grantors had valid title to convey

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant proved, by unrebutted presumption of regularity and official evidence, that the disputed land is state land validly leased to her. The plaintiffs failed to rebut this presumption or establish that their grantors had title to the land. Prior judgments and alleged releases did not confer title on the plaintiffs' grantors. The burden to disprove the state's title was on the plaintiffs, which they failed to discharge.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed
  • Findings and conclusions of the trial court, including award of damages, set aside