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
BAAKO VRS. FOBI (LS/232/98) [2024] GHAHC 181 (15 March 2024)
The High Court held that property acquired in the plaintiff’s name was protected by the presumption of advancement, defeating the defendant’s devise under the will.
Dynasty Chinese Restaurant Ltd Vrs Cato and 4 Others [2023] GHAHC 343 (6 February 2023)
The court found the presumption of advancement applied in favour of the 1st defendant, making him both legal and beneficial owner of the property. There was no evidence of a resulting trust. The 1st defendant could lawfully gift his reversionary interest to his siblings, and the plaintiff's interest was not affected by this. The sublease was irregular as it was not signed by the legal owner, and expired upon surrender of the head lease. The plaintiff, by challenging the title of the defendants, forfeited its sublease. Plaintiff's claims failed and judgment was entered for the defendants' coun…
Source excerpt
Kwame Apemasu -vrs-lydia Adomah Sub. By Yaa Agyeiwaa [2022] GHACA 49 (28 November 2022)
The Plaintiff successfully rebutted the presumption of ownership in favour of the Defendant by providing compelling oral evidence from the grantor, caretaker, and other witnesses that she acquired the land and funded the construction, despite the documents being in the Defendant's name. The principle of resulting trust applied, and the trial judge's findings were supported by the weight of evidence.
Source excerpt
Boateng Vrs Serwah & 2 Ors [2021] GHASC 105 (14 April 2021)
The Supreme Court held that the exclusion of Exhibit 'A' was a substantial error as it was admissible former testimony, and its consideration established that the plaintiff and deceased jointly acquired the disputed properties. The voidness of the marriage did not bar the plaintiff's claim to co-ownership, as property rights can arise independently of marital status. The defence of illegality did not apply as the alleged illegality was not serious, and denying the claim would be disproportionate. The plaintiff is entitled to a 40% share in the properties as a tenant in common with the decease…
Source excerpt
BOATENG VRS. SERWAH AND OTHERS (J4/08/2020) [2021] GHASC 195 (14 April 2021)
The Supreme Court held that although the plaintiff's customary marriage to the deceased was void due to her subsisting monogamous marriage, her claim to joint ownership of the disputed properties was valid based on evidence of substantial contribution and resulting trust. The exclusion of Exhibit 'A' was a substantial miscarriage of justice. The defence of illegality did not bar her claim as the perceived illegality was not serious, and denying her claim would be disproportionate. The plaintiff is entitled to a 40% share and the defendants to a 60% share of the properties, to be realized by s…
Source excerpt
Boateng Vrs Serwah and Others [2021] GHASC 19 (14 April 2021)
Supreme Court partly allowed an appeal over disputed property shares, holding the plaintiff had a beneficial interest by resulting trust but no valid customary marriage.
Boateng Vrs Serwah & 2 Ors [2021] GHASC 158 (14 April 2021)
The Supreme Court held that the exclusion of Exhibit 'A' was erroneous and occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice, as it contained admissible evidence of joint acquisition. The plaintiff's customary marriage was void due to a subsisting ordinance marriage, but her claim to the properties survived on the basis of resulting trust from joint contributions. The defence of illegality did not bar her claim, as the seriousness of the alleged illegality was minor and denial would be disproportionate. The plaintiff was entitled to a 40% share in the properties as a tenant in common, not as a…
Source excerpt
Boateng Vrs Serwah & 2 Ors [2021] GHASC 106 (14 April 2021)
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's customary marriage to the deceased was void due to her subsisting monogamous marriage, but this did not bar her claim to a beneficial interest in the disputed properties, as co-ownership can arise from joint contributions outside marriage. Exhibit 'A' was admissible as former testimony. The defence of illegality did not bar the claim, as the perceived illegality was not serious and denial would be disproportionate. The plaintiff was entitled to a 40% share in the properties as a tenant in common, not by survivorship.
Source excerpt
Boakye Vrsthe Presiding Bishop Of The Methodist Church & 3 Ors [2021] GHASC 162 (31 March 2021)
The Supreme Court held that House No. 29 Volta Avenue, Kumasi belonged to E. O. Boakye’s estate, finding the plaintiff estopped by her conduct and prior admissions.
Berimah Vrs Nanor & 2 Ors [2021] GHASC 165 (24 March 2021)
The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that forged documents and fraud could not support the plaintiff’s claim to the property.
Explore more
