Baah Vrs Ghana Water Company Ltd & Anor [2022] GHASC 61 (29 June 2022)

Baah Vrs Ghana Water Company Ltd & Anor [2022] GHASC 61 (29 June 2022)

The Supreme Court found that the cables did overhang the respondent’s property, constituting trespass and nuisance. The court held that the respondent was entitled to damages, but the quantum should reflect the value of the property at the time the action was commenced, not the later, higher valuation. The court substituted the sum of GH¢530,400.00 as damages and ordered the respondent to yield possession of the house upon payment.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 61
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Kojo Baah (substituted by Jennifer Baah); Defendant/appellant/appellant: Ghana Water Company Ltd.; Defendant/appellant/appellant: China Gerzoubag Group
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
29 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; quantum of damages varied; consequential order for transfer of property upon payment.
Legal Topics
Trespass, Nuisance, Damages, Valuation of Property, Declaratory Relief, Injunction
Source Language
English
Tort Law Property Law Trespass Nuisance Damages Valuation of Property Declaratory Relief Injunction

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kojo Baah (substituted by Jennifer Baah)

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Ghana Water Company Ltd.

Defendant/appellant/appellant

China Gerzoubag Group

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the erection of pylons and high tension cables over the respondent’s property constituted trespass and nuisance
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to damages and/or compensation for the alleged trespass and nuisance
  3. 3 Whether the lower courts erred in awarding special damages and compensation not specifically pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the cables did overhang the respondent’s property, constituting trespass and nuisance. The court held that the respondent was entitled to damages, but the quantum should reflect the value of the property at the time the action was commenced, not the later, higher valuation. The court substituted the sum of GH¢530,400.00 as damages and ordered the respondent to yield possession of the house upon payment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; quantum of damages varied; consequential order for transfer of property upon payment.

Orders

  • Damages for trespass awarded at GH¢530,400.00 to be paid within one month.
  • Upon payment, respondent to yield possession of the house to appellants.