Ghana Case Law

Otinkorang v Madina Pentecost Housing Scheme Ltd and Others (LD/0344/20)

Otinkorang v Madina Pentecost Housing Scheme Ltd and Others (LD/0344/20) [2025] GHAHC 117 (27 January 2025)

Court

High Court

Case number

LD/0344/20

Plaintiff’s claim to 72,000 acres and the disputed land is based on a judgment (CA 49/80) that has been set aside by the Supreme Court as fraudulent. Plaintiff failed to prove acquisition, identity, and possession of the disputed land. Defendants established valid acquisition from Katamanso stool, open possession, and development. The 46.887 acres in dispute form part of Katamanso and Nungua Stool lands, not Plaintiff’s family land.

Source excerpt

• Declaration of title to land
• Recovery of possession
• Perpetual injunction
• Damages for trespass
• Counterclaim
• Res judicata

Read case analysis

OTINKORANG VRS. MADINA PENTECOST HOUSING SCHEME LTD AND OTHERS (LD/0344/20)

OTINKORANG VRS. MADINA PENTECOST HOUSING SCHEME LTD AND OTHERS (LD/0344/20) [2025] GHAHC 43 (27 January 2025)

Court

High Court

Case number

LD/0344/20

Plaintiff failed to prove acquisition, identity, and possession of the disputed land; the foundation of Plaintiff’s claim (Suit No. 49/80) was set aside by the Supreme Court as fraudulent and cannot support title to the 72,000 acres or the disputed land. Defendants established that the land forms part of Katamanso and Nungua Stool lands, and the 1st Defendant’s title and possession were validly derived. Supreme Court precedent is binding and dispositive.

Source excerpt

• Declaration of title to land
• Recovery of possession
• Trespass
• Perpetual injunction
• Counterclaim
• Res judicata

Read case analysis

DJANGMAH VRS DORKUTSO & ANOR (J2/01/2024)

DJANGMAH VRS DORKUTSO & ANOR (J2/01/2024) [2024] GHASC 46 (30 October 2024)

Court

ghasc

The Supreme Court held that the issue of rotational succession between the Loweh Adainya and Loweh Kpono families had not been conclusively determined in previous cases, as prior pronouncements were obiter dicta and not binding precedent. Upon evaluating the evidence, including admissions by the Appellants and the history of succession, the Court found that the Loweh Adainya Royal Family alone has the customary right to nominate, select, elect, install, and enstool the paramount chief of the Great Ningo Traditional Area. The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Judicial Committee of t…

Source excerpt

• Succession to stool
• Estoppel (res judicata)
• Stare decisis
• Customary succession
• Interpretation of customary law
• Judicial precedent

Read case analysis

NYAMEKYE vrs F.K.A. COMPANY (J4/29/2024)

NYAMEKYE vrs F.K.A. COMPANY (J4/29/2024) [2024] GHASC 44 (23 October 2024)

Court

ghasc

The Plaintiff validly acquired the disputed land from the Weija Stool prior to the Defendant's grant; the Weija Stool could not make a subsequent grant to the Defendant due to nemo dat quod non habet; prior Supreme Court decision in Effah Sarkodie is binding and not departed from; Plaintiff's capacity to sue was not defeated; Defendant's arguments regarding government acquisition and capacity failed; appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Customary land grants
• Trespass
• Capacity to sue
• Res judicata
• Nemo dat quod non habet
• Compulsory acquisition

Read case analysis

LOMOTEY & ANOR VRS RICHARDSON & 3 ORS (J7/21/2022)

LOMOTEY & ANOR VRS RICHARDSON & 3 ORS (J7/21/2022) [2023] GHASC 101 (17 January 2023)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

J7/21/2022

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

• Capacity to sue
• Review jurisdiction
• Limitation of actions
• Laches and acquiescence
• Fraud on the court
• Possessory interests

Read case analysis

Lomotey & Anor Vrs Richardson & 3 Ors

Lomotey & Anor Vrs Richardson & 3 Ors [2022] GHASC 65 (15 June 2022)

Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (majority) held that the disputed land falls within the area previously adjudged to belong to the Numo Kofi Anum family in the Mate Tesa case, and the Nungua Stool (plaintiffs' grantor) had no title to grant; the co-defendant was properly joined and had capacity under customary law exceptions; the Court of Appeal erred in excluding relevant evidence and not following binding precedent; the trial court's decision in favour of the Numo Kofi Anum family is restored.

Source excerpt

• Title to land
• Capacity to sue
• Res judicata
• Stare decisis
• Possessory title
• Joinder of parties

Read case analysis

REPUBLIC VRS. HIGH COURT

REPUBLIC VRS. HIGH COURT (CRIMINAL DIVISION 1), ACCRA EXPARTE: OPUNI INTERESTED PARTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL (J7/20/2021) [2021] GHASC 204 (26 October 2021)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

J7/20/2021

Supreme Court review ruling on certiorari and prohibition in Stephen Kwabena Opuni's case concerning excluded exhibits, natural justice, and bias.

• Supervisory jurisdiction
• Certiorari
• Prohibition
• Natural justice
• Bias
• Stare decisis

Read case analysis

Republic Vrs High Court Ex Parte: Opuni

Republic Vrs High Court Ex Parte: Opuni [2021] GHASC 95 (26 October 2021)

Court

Supreme Court

Supreme Court review motion in the Opuni matter was dismissed. The court left intact its earlier ruling addressing certiorari, prohibition, hearsay, and bias.

• Supervisory jurisdiction
• Certiorari
• Prohibition
• Natural justice
• Bias
• Stare decisis

Read case analysis

NKPA VRS QUAYE & 2 OTHERS (H1/123/2021)

NKPA VRS QUAYE & 2 OTHERS (H1/123/2021) [2021] GHACA 36 (29 July 2021)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

H1/123/2021

The trial court erred in granting perpetual injunction and ancillary reliefs after finding the land belonged to Nungua Stool, not the plaintiff's family; respondent lacked capacity to sue, fraud was not proven, and the appellant was entitled to judgment on his counterclaim.

Source excerpt

• Declaration of title
• Recovery of possession
• Perpetual injunction
• Capacity to sue
• Burden of proof
• Fraud

Read case analysis