JUSTICE GILBERT MENSAH QUAYE v. KOIWAH INVESTMENT CO.LTD. & ORS
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- YEBOAH JSC (PRESIDING)
- GBADEGBE JSC
- APPAU JSC
- MARFUL-SAU JSC
- KOTEY JSC
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal challenges the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal concerning a Deed of Gift and a Deed of Purchase involving land from the Nungua Stool. The Supreme Court rejected the 1st Defendant’s argument that the High Court’s earlier nullification of the Deed of Purchase should also apply to the Deed of Gift, noting differences in the required consent from accredited elders. It emphasized that estoppel requires identical parties, issues, and subject matters in both cases. The court also highlighted the doctrine of abuse of process to prevent re-litigation of issues that could have been raised earlier. The court affirmed that judgments are prospective rather than retrospective and upheld the principle that a grantor cannot convey what they do not have, dismissing the appeal and affirming the Court of Appeal's decision.
JUDGEMENT
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:-
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.
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 indicated we in inten