Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Ghana decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Anum v Tsotsoobi (A9/13/23) [2025] GHADC 123 (9 April 2025)
The District Court at La held that the defendant was barred by laches and acquiescence and granted reliefs restraining interference and requiring the tenant to vacate.
Quaye v Quarshie and Another (J4/63/2023) [2025] GHASC 33 (2 April 2025)
The Supreme Court dismissed Numo Alfred Quaye’s appeal, upheld the cross-appeal, and affirmed that his action failed for lack of capacity and limitation.
OWUSU & anor vrs MAPUTO & 3 ors [2025] GHASC 1 (29 January 2025)
The plaintiffs failed to prove the identity of the land they claimed as required by law; their primary documents (allocation note and will) did not describe the land, and the lease was procured during litigation and found to be fraudulent. The defendants, being in possession and having allocation notes and receipts, established a better claim. The Court of Appeal's reliance on the second notice of appeal did not occasion a miscarriage of justice as both notices contained the omnibus ground. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision.
Source excerpt
COMMEY AND ANOTHER VRS. COMMEY AND ANOTHER (LD/0487/2019) [2024] GHAHC 147 (19 July 2024)
The land in dispute, having been partitioned among the three branches of the Nii Annang Nkpa family, lost its character as family property and became the property of the respective branches. Female members are constitutionally entitled to inherit. The 1st Defendant had no authority to sell the land without the Plaintiffs’ consent. The 2nd Defendant failed to establish bona fide purchaser status or the defences of laches and acquiescence. The Plaintiffs’ representative capacity was regularized by amendment.
Source excerpt
AGLAGOH VRS DOMPIM (FAL/268/2014) [2024] GHAHC 26 (21 February 2024)
The High Court in Accra found the plaintiff proved title and possession of disputed land, rejected limitation and laches defences, and awarded damages, costs, and injunction.
MARK ADU PREMPEH VS SAMUEL ANKRAH (KH1/06/22) [2024] GHACA 1 (25 January 2024)
Court of Appeal upheld a trial judgment for the plaintiff in a land dispute, rejecting the appellant’s claims of adverse possession, limitation, and invalid title.
QUARTEY VRS. ARTHUR AND ANOTHER (LD/0054/2019) [2024] GHAHC 126 (22 January 2024)
Plaintiff proved acquisition of subject land from Owoo family in 1988 by indenture and registration; Defendants’ evidence inconsistent and failed to prove uninterrupted adverse possession for twelve years; Defendants’ counterclaim and limitation defence failed; laches and acquiescence not specifically pleaded and not established; Plaintiff entitled to declaration of title, recovery, injunction, damages, and costs.
Source excerpt
Opoku Vrs Saa [2023] GHASC 2 (18 January 2023)
Supreme Court appeal over title to disputed land dismissed. The Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s finding that laches and acquiescence barred the plaintiff’s claim.
LOMOTEY & ANOR VRS RICHARDSON & 3 ORS (J7/21/2022) [2023] GHASC 101 (17 January 2023)
The majority held that the Applicants failed to establish exceptional circumstances resulting in a miscarriage of justice as required for review under Article 133 and Rule 54(a) of C.I. 16. Even if there was an error regarding the Co-Defendant's capacity, it did not occasion a miscarriage of justice because the evidence and title would have been resolved in favor of the Numo Kofi Anum family regardless. The Supreme Court was not strictly bound by its previous decision in the Tesa case and was entitled to depart for stated reasons. The Applicants' claims for possessory interests and protection…
Source excerpt
Takyi & Anor Vrs Wireko & Anor [2022] GHASC 31 (14 December 2022)
The Appellants' action was statute barred, having been filed over twenty-five years after they became aware of the Respondents' adverse claim. The evidence overwhelmingly supported the Respondents' case that the transaction was a sale, not a pledge, and the Appellants and their predecessors acquiesced in the Respondents' ownership for decades. No error of law or fact was committed by the lower courts.
Source excerpt
Explore more
