PETER OSEI ASSIBEY v. LANDS COMMISSION
2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- M. OWUSU, (J.A.) - PRESIDING
- DZAMEFE, (J.A.)
- WELBOURNE, (J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Constitutional Law
2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court, Kumasi, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on grounds of estoppel by prior adjudication, citing a previous Court of Appeal decision that resolved the same issues. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing multiple grounds including a misapplication of the doctrine of res judicata and jurisdictional errors. The plaintiff sought to overturn the High Court's decision, seek damages, and claim violations of property rights under Article 20 of the 1992 Constitution. Upon review, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's ruling on the basis that the issues had been previously resolved and thus estopped the present action, upholding principles of estoppel, res judicata, and the juridical powers of the Court of Appeal.
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.:
on 23rd october, 2017, the high court, kumasi, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. the court held among others as follows:
“in conclusion, from the examination of exhibit ‘lc3’, i am of the view that the plaintiff is estopped by bringing this action since the issues have been resolved by the court of appeal. the court therefore had no jurisdiction to pronounce on the merits of the case.
i therefore proceed to dismiss the entire suit. no order as to cost.”
dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the plaintiff mounted this appeal on the following grounds:
1. the judgment is against the weight of the evidence.
2. additional grounds of appeal will be filed on receipt of the record of proceedings.
the reliefs sought from the court of appeal
an order setting aside the judgment of the high court, kumasi and entering judgment for the plaintiff/appellant.
on 13th april, 2018, the plaintiff/appellant filed seven (7) additional grounds of appeal. they are:
1. the learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the cause of action in the first suit no. c1/77/2013 entitled peter osei assibey v. acheamfour ltd. & osei tutu @ obideabawas/is the same as the cause of action in the instant suit no. irl 60/2014 entitled peter osei assibey trading under the name and style of adehyeman foundation v. lands commission, kumasi.
2. the learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the issues determined in the said suit no. c1/77/2013 are the same as those raised for determination in the instant suit or second suit no. irl 60/2014 entitled peter ose assibey trading under the name and style of adehyeman foundation v. lands commission, kumasi.
3. that the learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the decision or judgment delivered in the said first suit no. c1/77/2013 operates as res judicata against the issues raised for determination in the said second or instant suit no. irl 60/2014.
4. the learned trial judge therefore erred in law when he held that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the said second or instant suit no. irl 60/2014.
5. the trial judge erred in law when he failed in his duty to consider or deal with the merits of the case from the pleadings and evidence given by the plaintiff and the defendant on record and to give the appropriate judgment in the suit.
6. the learned trial judge erred in law when he failed to give judgment for the plaintiff/appellant and grant him all the reliefs he s