Mainoo & Anor Vrs Ataa & 4 Ors [2022] GHASC 91 (30 November 2022)

Mainoo & Anor Vrs Ataa & 4 Ors [2022] GHASC 91 (30 November 2022)

The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs lawfully acquired the property from a majority of the children of the deceased, took possession, and performed acts of ownership with the knowledge of the defendants, who did not object. The evidence supporting the plaintiffs' case was corroborated by the defendants' own witnesses. The execution of the writ of possession was unlawful as the plaintiffs were not notified. The Court of Appeal erred in departing from the trial court's findings, which were supported by the evidence. The appeal was allowed, the Court of Appeal judgment set aside, and the High Court judgment restored.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 91
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Cyril Mainoo; Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Cymain Ghana Limited; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Ama Ataa; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Ama Pokuaa; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Efia Saa; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Nana Kunadu; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Ama Serwaa
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
30 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate (supreme Court) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment set aside; High Court judgment restored in favour of plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Sale of Estate Property, Estoppel, Burden of Proof, Counterclaim, Execution of Judgment
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Sale of Estate Property Estoppel Burden of Proof Counterclaim Execution of Judgment

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cyril Mainoo

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Cymain Ghana Limited

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Ama Ataa

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Ama Pokuaa

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Efia Saa

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Nana Kunadu

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Ama Serwaa

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate (supreme Court) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs lawfully acquired title to House Number 24, North Labone Housing Estate, Accra
  2. 2 Whether the sale of the property by some children of the deceased was valid and binding on all beneficiaries
  3. 3 Whether the execution of the writ of possession against the plaintiffs was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs lawfully acquired the property from a majority of the children of the deceased, took possession, and performed acts of ownership with the knowledge of the defendants, who did not object. The evidence supporting the plaintiffs' case was corroborated by the defendants' own witnesses. The execution of the writ of possession was unlawful as the plaintiffs were not notified. The Court of Appeal erred in departing from the trial court's findings, which were supported by the evidence. The appeal was allowed, the Court of Appeal judgment set aside, and the High Court judgment restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment set aside; High Court judgment restored in favour of plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Declaration of title to House Number 24, North Labone Housing Estate, Accra in favour of plaintiffs
  • Perpetual injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the property