JUSTICE GILBERT MENSAH QUAYE v. KOIWAH INVESTMENT CO.LTD & OTHERS
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANSAH, JSC (PRESIDING)
- DOTSE, JSC
- BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC
- BENIN, JSC
- PWAMANG, JSC
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The 1st Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court after losing in both the High Court and Court of Appeal. The main issue was whether estoppel applied to a Deed of Gift that was unaffected by a prior judgment nullifying a Deed of Purchase. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions that estoppel was inapplicable due to differences in parties, issues, and subject matter across the cases. The Court emphasized principles like the requirement to bring all claims in initial litigation to avoid abuse of process and confirmed that judgments are prospective, not retroactive. The case also underscored the nemo dat quod non habet principle, establishing that once a deed is issued, the grantor loses the right to re-convey the same property.
J U D G M E N T
MARFUL-SAU, JSC:-
This appeal is taken against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the High Court. In these proceedings we intend to give the parties the designation they had before the trial court. The 1st defendant who lost the contest both at the High Court and the Court of Appeal now appeals to this court on the following grounds:-
1. The Court of Appeal erred when it held that estoppel was inapplicable to the Deed of Gift because it was the Deed of Purchase which was affected by the Judgment of Ollenu J, in Suit No. 151/1960 dated 27th July, 1962 entitled Borkete Osonoware & 23 Others v. Nii Odai Ayiku IV & Quaye Tawiah, when the said judgment nullified the Deed of Purchase made to the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent’s father in 1958 or 1959 on the basis that the attesting witnesses whose consent and concurrence the Plaintiff/ Respondent/ Respondent relied on to prove the Deed of Gift were not the accredited elders whose consent and concurrence was necessary for a valid grant of Nungua Stool in 1958 or 1959.
2. The judgment is against the weight of evidence
From the record of appeal no additional ground was filed as indicated in the Notice of Appeal filed on the 28th November 2017. Ground (1) as formulated above clearly offends rule 6 (4) and (5) of the Rules of this court in the sense that it is argumentative and narrative in nature. Under Rule 6(5) of CI 16, any ground of appeal which is not permitted under the rule may be struck out by the court on its own motion or on application by the Respondent. However, since the ultimate objective of this court is to do justice on the merit of cases, we shall refrain from striking out that ground, but sever the offending parts and amend the said ground to read as follow: - ‘’the Court of Appeal erred when it held that estoppel was inapplicable to the Deed of Gift’’. Indeed, the severed parts of the ground are matters that could be addressed in the statement of case.
In Attorney – General v. Faroe Atlantic Co. Ltd. {2005-2006} SCGLR 271, this court had cause to strike out offending parts of two of the grounds of appeal and amended the two grounds of appeal for the Appellant. Similarly in West Laurel Co. Ltd v. Agricultural Development Bank {2007-2008} 1 SCGLR 556, the court found grounds (2) and (4) of the Appeal as argumentative and narrative and as such struck out ground (2) but waived non- compliance with the Rules in respect of ground (4). As indicate