Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
January 29, 2025
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
MAJORITY OPINION
SACKEY TORKORNOO CJ:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is one of those seemingly interminable litigation over land, despite the existence of clear documentation that establishes and validates the true ownership of the land in issue. The curious case on our hands shows that the stool occupant and customary grantor of land in Ashanti, together with a representative of the Asantehene's secretariat as confirming party, allocated land to a citizen in 1977, and issued a lease to the progeny of the allottee in finalization of the grant. Notwithstanding the removal of all doubt about who the stool grantor of land wished to lease the land to, other citizens, two of who point to a promise of allocation, and one who points to an allocation note with no confirmation, insist that they have equitable rights over the same piece of land that must be turned into legal ownership by the courts. And despite a survey report that confirms that the claims are over the same piece of land, the rival claimants insist that the lessee's land is elsewhere. This is the unhappy lot of
courts. To sometimes find answers lying in plain sight for litigants who wish that the facts were different.
BACKGROUND OF FACTS AND LAW
2. Judgment in this dispute was entered in favor of the Plaintiffs /Respondents /Appellants (hereafter referred to as the Plaintiffs) by the high court on 11th March 2021. The Court dismissed the counterclaim of the Defendants/Appellants/Respondents (hereafter referred to as defendants). Notice of appeal against the judgment was filed on the same day 11th March 2021 on the following grounds.
a. The judgment is against the weight of the evidence on record
b. The Court erred when it held that the subject-matter was acquired by the Plaintiffs' father Okyere Agyekum
3. On 22nd March 2021, a different lawyer filed a notice of change of solicitors and an appointment of a new solicitor for the defendants. He went on to file a second notice of appeal later on 22nd March 2021, and without any further steps
pursuant to Rule 17 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 C.I 19 (As Amended by CI 21). Rule 17 reads:
17. Withdrawal of Appeal.
(1). Subject to rule 15, if the appellant files with the Registrar a notice of withdrawal of his appeal, the Registrar shall certify that fact to the Court, which may thereupon order that the appeal be dismissed with or without costs.
(2). Copies of the notice of withdrawal shall at the expense of the appellant be served on any of the
AI Generated Summary
In a land dispute from Esreso in Ashanti, the Supreme Court (majority by Sackey Torkornoo CJ, joined by Mensa-Bonsu and Darko Asare JJSC) reinstated the High Court’s judgment in favor of the children of Agyekum Okyere Mainoo, who had received a 1977 stool allocation for a 5.15-acre Gas Processing Factory site confirmed by the Asantehene’s secretariat and consistently referenced by file S30343 in ground-rent records. The defendants included Jesse Maputo, claiming Plot 5A under a 2002 unconfirmed allocation, and a couple operating a chop bar under a 2004 District Assembly permit on Plot 5B. A court survey showed Plots 5A and 5B fall within the plaintiffs’ Plot 5. The Court of Appeal had reversed, saying plaintiffs failed to identify the land. Addressing procedural issues over competing notices of appeal, the Supreme Court held jurisdiction was properly invoked and, on rehearing, found the High Court’s decision aligned with the weight of evidence: plaintiffs proved identity and possession; defendants’ presence was by license, not adverse possession; later allocations could not override earlier grants, and re-entry was not exercised under law. The Court reversed the Court of Appeal and affirmed the High Court, awarding costs to the plaintiffs.