Jonathan Kwete Quartey (suing per his lawful attorney Emmanuel N.O. Fiemawhle) v Mr. Ofori Antwi Boasiako II & Nii Samuel Adjei Mensah (Head and Lawful Representative of Akwraboye Doku Family of Atrekorwe, Teshie)
His Lordship Justice Emmanuel A. Lodoh
The Plaintiff sold land to the 1st Defendant for USD150,000, of which USD100,000 was paid. The Defendant refused to pay the balance after alleging that the Plaintiff had no valid title and that the land belonged to the 2nd Defendant’s family. The Court found that the Defendants failed to establish their claim of ownership and that the Plaintiff had valid title. The Defendant was held to have breached the contract and ordered to pay the outstanding balance with interest.
Fidelity Bank Ghana Limited v Emmanuel Adotey Allotey; Willy Hauptmann Junior
Justice Emmanuel A. Lodoh
The Execution Creditor obtained a warrant to recover possession of a property used as security for a loan. A third party (Claimant) filed a Notice of Claim asserting ownership of the same property and challenging its attachment in execution. The Court held that although property taken in execution is presumed to belong to the judgment debtor, the Claimant successfully rebutted this presumption by establishing a superior root of title. The Execution Creditor failed to prove that the judgment debtor had valid title to the property. The Claimant’s claim was therefore upheld.
Kate Fianyo v Constance Badu
Justice Jane Harriet Akweley Quaye
The Plaintiff, administrator of her deceased husband’s estate, sought declarations that a purported sale of estate property was void and damages for trespass. The Defendant counterclaimed for specific performance, declaration of title, and damages, asserting that a valid sale agreement existed and that she had paid part of the purchase price and taken possession. The Court found that although there was clear intention to sell and part payment was made, the Plaintiff lacked capacity to sell the property as no vesting assent had been executed. The purported sale was therefore void. The Defendant’s counterclaim for specific performance and title failed, but she was awarded a refund with interest and damages due to the Plaintiff’s conduct.
The Board of Governors of O’Reilly Senior High School v Razzouk Kriaks & Anor (2025)
His Lordship Justice Kwame Gyamfi Osei
The Plaintiff, representing O’Reilly Senior High School, claimed title to land compulsorily acquired by the Government under an Executive Instrument (E.I. 18) and alleged trespass by the Defendants. The Defendants contended that they acquired the land through a valid grant supported by a Land Title Certificate and that the land they occupied was not part of the compulsorily acquired land. The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to prove that the disputed land formed part of the land acquired under E.I. 18, particularly due to failure to tender the acquisition plan referenced in the Instrument and inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s survey evidence. The Plaintiff’s claim was therefore dismissed.
Adu Kofi Djin v John Kweku Aacht & Anor; Lands Commission (2025)
Justice Ruby Naa Adjeley Quaison
The Plaintiff sought declaration of title, recovery of possession, injunction, and damages over a 6.08-acre parcel of land. The Defendants failed to enter appearance or file a defence despite being duly served. The Court proceeded to hear the matter and held that even in default, the Plaintiff must prove his case. Upon evaluating the evidence, the Court found that the Plaintiff successfully proved his root of title, mode of acquisition, identity of the land, and acts of possession. Judgment was therefore entered in favour of the Plaintiff, including damages for trespass and an order for registration of title.
RAZAK ABDUL SADDIQUE ALHASSAN V. SSNIT
JUSTICE GIFTY DEKYEM
Labour Law — Dismissal — Proven Misconduct — Delegation of Administrative Authority — Natural Justice — Burden of Proof — Disciplinary Proceedings The plaintiff, a SSNIT employee, was dismissed for alleged extortion of money from pensioners. He contended that the dismissal was unlawful because the officer who signed the dismissal letter lacked authority, that he was not afforded a hearing, and that the alleged misconduct was unproven and the dismissal harsh. The defendant maintained that the dismissal followed a proper disciplinary process and that the plaintiff had engaged in misconduct. Held: 1. Authority to Dismiss — The Acting Head of Human Resource Management who signed the dismissal letter was competent to do so. Administrative functions relating to personnel matters may be delegated, and validity of dismissal depends on proof of misconduct, not the identity of the signatory. 2. Right to be Heard — The plaintiff received a query, responded to it, and appeared before a disciplinary committee that heard witnesses and allowed cross‑examination. The requirements of natural justice were met. 3. Proof of Misconduct — Evidence before the committee established that the plaintiff received money from pensioners Abu Seidu and Sarah Gariba. Plaintiff’s explanations were inconsistent and unreliable. Misconduct was proven on the preponderance of probabilities. 4. Harshness of Dismissal — Misconduct that tarnishes the employer’s image justifies dismissal. The dismissal was not harsh. 5. Availability of Reliefs — A claim for wrongful dismissal requires proof of contractual breach or statutory violation. Plaintiff failed to meet this burden and was not entitled to reinstatement, salaries, or damages. Result: Claim dismissed in its entirety. Cost of GHS1,000 awarded to the defendant
Ex-WO1 Nii Sowah Henry Otinkorang (Substituted by Nii Okang Duamro Nmashie III) v Madina Pentecost Housing Scheme Ltd & Ors (2025)
Her Ladyship Justice Eudora Christina Dadson
The Plaintiff claimed ownership of extensive family lands and alleged trespass by the Defendants, seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, and injunction. The Defendants contended that the land formed part of Katamanso Stool lands and challenged the Plaintiff’s title, identity of land, and reliance on prior judgments. The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to prove acquisition, identity of the land, and acts of possession. The Court also found that prior judgments relied upon did not establish title to the specific land in dispute, and that competing evidence showed the land formed part of Katamanso Stool lands. The Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.
Ebenezer Yaoboi Tackie v Manaf Attuquaye, Elonai Kwame Mawuko Agbevenu & Solomon Ntim
His Lordship Justice Alexander Graham
The Plaintiff claimed title to land at Ashalaja based on a lease executed by alleged family heads and supported by a provisional land title certificate. He also claimed damages for trespass and demolition of his structure. The Defendants challenged the Plaintiff’s root of title and asserted competing ownership, with the 2nd Defendant counterclaiming title. The Court held that the Plaintiff’s grant was void for lack of authority of the grantors, failed to prove identity of the land, and could not rely on provisional registration to establish title. The 2nd Defendant successfully proved title and possession, while the 3rd Defendant’s possession was upheld. The Plaintiff succeeded only in damages for unlawful demolition.
Emmanuel Koko v Nii Dodoo
Her Ladyship Justice Priscilla Dapaah Mireku
The Plaintiff claimed title to land at Bukuase Afiaman based on receipts and an indenture allegedly executed by the Defendant’s father and uncle and sought recovery of possession, damages for trespass, and injunction. The Court found that although the Plaintiff may have purchased land from the Defendant’s family, he failed to establish the identity, boundaries, and acts of possession over the land claimed. The indenture relied upon was found unreliable, and no sufficient evidence of possession was led. The Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof, and his claims were dismissed.
Tabita Trebi & Lydia Trebi v Osumanu Ashitei Amarhnkpa & Frank Trebi
Justice Eudora Christina Dadson
The Plaintiffs challenged the validity of the Will of the deceased on the basis that the property devised therein did not belong to the testator but to their late mother, thereby depriving the testator of testamentary capacity over the property. The Defendants maintained that the property belonged to the testator and that the Will was valid. The Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to establish the identity of the land they claimed belonged to their mother. A composite plan and unchallenged evidence demonstrated that the two parcels of land were distinct. Consequently, the Plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof, and their claim for invalidity of the Will failed. The Defendants’ counterclaim also failed due to lack of evidence.
Gladys Anita Agyei v Ben Attipoe Owoo (2025)
His Lordship Justice Dr. Ernest Owusu-Dapaa (JA, sitting as Additional High Court Judge)
The Plaintiff claimed title to land at Kisseman supported by a Land Title Certificate and alleged trespass, encroachment, and interference by the Defendant. The Defendant contended that his land was separate, part of family land, and that the disputed area constituted a public access route. The Court relied heavily on a court-appointed surveyor’s composite plan and expert evidence and found that although the parties’ lands were distinct on paper, the Defendant’s structures encroached onto the Plaintiff’s registered land. The Plaintiff succeeded in proving title and trespass, though failed on some evidential issues such as demolition and dumping of materials. The Court granted declaration of title, injunction, and removal of encroaching structures
Kweku Preko & Abenamanu v Maxwell Coffie (2025)
High Court of Ghana
The Plaintiffs claimed title to land at Kokrobite based on a 2002 indenture and alleged trespass by the Defendant. The Defendant countered that he acquired the land from a different grantor with valid title, supported by an indenture and Land Title Certificate. The Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to prove their root of title, boundaries, and acts of possession. Their evidence was inconsistent with their pleadings, and their indenture was found unreliable. The Defendant, on the other hand, established a better title through his grantor and registration. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed, and judgment was entered for the Defendant.
Solomon Mintah Ackaah (suing as Head and Lawful Representative of the Akwanor Royal Family of Ashalaja) v Ghana National Tailors & Dressmakers Association (Taifa Branch Executives) (2025)
His Lordship Justice Alexander Graham
The Plaintiff, as Head of the Akwanor Royal Family, sought declaration of title, recovery of possession, cancellation of the Defendant’s land title certificate, and related reliefs over family land at Ashalaja. The Defendant relied on a 2007 acquisition from persons who held themselves out as family heads, registration of title, long possession, and prior Circuit Court judgments. The Court held that although the Plaintiff was the lawful head of the family, his recognition did not operate retrospectively to invalidate the Defendant’s earlier acquisition. The Defendant was found to have validly acquired the land, registered its title, and qualified as an innocent purchaser for value without notice. The Plaintiff’s claims to the land failed, while the Defendant’s title was upheld.
NANA KWARTENG PANIN AKOSA II, NANA ACHEAPONG- KONTIHENE, YAW KUSI AND HAYFORD APPIAH-KUBI VRS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
ATUGUBA, AG. C J (PRESIDING), AKUFFO (MS), JSC, BROBBEY, JSC, ANSAH, JSC, ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC, YEBOAH, JSC, BONNIE, JSC, GBADEGBE, JSC, BAMFO (MRS), JSC
The Plaintiffs challenged L.I. 1853, arguing that the change of the district capital from Twedie to Foase after it had been laid before Parliament violated Article 11(7) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court considered whether the instrument that came into force was the same as that laid before Parliament. It held that Parliament has no power to amend subsidiary legislation; it can only approve or annul it. The Court found no evidence that the original instrument was withdrawn and replaced lawfully. Relying on the Gazette as prima facie evidence, the Court held the change was unauthorized. The offending provision was annulled, and Twedie was restored as the lawful district capital.
PROFESSOR STEPHEN KWAKU ASARE VRS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
ATUGUBA, AG. CJ (PRESIDING), AKUFFO (MS), JSC, BROBBEY, JSC, DR. DATE-BAH, JSC, ANSAH, JSC, OWUSU (MS), JSC, YEBOAH, JSC, GBADEGBE, JSC, BAMFO (MRS), JSC
The Plaintiff challenged section 16(2) of the Citizenship Act, 2000 (Act 591), arguing that it violated Article 17 of the Constitution by discriminating against dual citizens. The provision barred dual citizens from holding specified public offices. The Supreme Court examined whether this amounted to unconstitutional discrimination. The Court held that while Article 17 guarantees equality, it permits reasonable classifications where justified by national interest. It found that restrictions on dual citizens holding certain sensitive offices were constitutionally permissible. Accordingly, the claim failed and section 16(2) was upheld as valid.
Rowland Kofi Dwamena v Richard Nartey Otoo & The Regional Lands Officer (2019)
Ansah JSC (Presiding), Gbadegbe JSC, Appau JSC, Pwamang JSC, Dordzie JSC
The case concerned a dispute over ownership of land at Osu. The Plaintiff sought declaration of title, recovery of possession, and related reliefs. The Defendant counterclaimed as a customary successor. However, an earlier Supreme Court decision had already determined that the Defendant had no interest in the land. The Supreme Court invoked the doctrine of judicial notice under section 9 of the Evidence Act to take notice of that prior judgment, even though it was not formally tendered in evidence. The Court held that the Defendant was not a proper party and struck out his defence and counterclaim. Consequently, the proceedings were incompetent and both the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions were set aside, and the suit struck out
MRS. ABENA POKUAA ACKAH VRS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING), GBADEGBE JSC, AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC, BENIN JSC, PWAMANG JSC
Labour Law - Constitutional Law – Fundamental Human Rights – Right to Privacy – Secret recording of telephone conversation – Article 18(2) of the 1992 Constitution – Freedom of speech and expression – Article 21 – Employment Law – Disciplinary proceedings – Bias – Article 23 – Article 33 remedies The appellant, an employee of the respondent bank, engaged in a telephone conversation with a journalist concerning the restructuring of the respondent bank and the payment of substantial bonuses to its Managing Director. The conversation was secretly recorded without the appellant’s consent and was later relied upon by the respondent to institute disciplinary proceedings culminating in the termination of the appellant’s appointment for gross misconduct and breach of oath of secrecy. The appellant commenced proceedings in the Human Rights Division of the High Court under article 33 of the 1992 Constitution alleging violations of her rights to privacy, freedom of speech and fair hearing. The High Court dismissed the action and the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision. On further appeal to the Supreme Court: Held: 1. Right to privacy of communication – The secret recording of a private telephone conversation without the consent of the appellant constituted an interference with the right to privacy of communication guaranteed under article 18(2) of the 1992 Constitution, irrespective of the subject matter of the conversation. 2. Judicial scrutiny – Interference with the constitutional right to privacy can only be justified if it is in accordance with law, which ordinarily requires prior judicial scrutiny. An employer cannot unilaterally determine that an employee’s constitutional rights have been lawfully curtailed. 3. Supremacy of the Constitution over contract – A contract of employment or an oath of secrecy cannot operate as an exception to, or derogation from, the enjoyment of fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution. An employee cannot contract out of constitutional protections. 4. Freedom of speech and public interest – The appellant’s comments related to matters of public and national interest concerning a public institution. Such expression was protected under article 21 of the Constitution and was not, without more, punishable as misconduct. 5. Disciplinary proceedings – Fairness and bias – The respondent’s conduct in suspending the appellant on half salary and making adverse findings prior to the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings amounted to a breach of natural justice and article 23 of the Constitution and was tainted by apparent bias. 6. Internal disciplinary procedures – An employer is bound by its own Human Resource Policy Manual. Failure to comply with laid‑down disciplinary procedures renders the resulting sanctions unlawful. 7. Scope of Article 33 remedies – Proceedings under article 33 and Order 67 of C.I. 47 are limited to the enforcement of fundamental human rights and do not substitute for common‑law remedies for wrongful termination of employment.
MR. SAMUEL OKUDZETO ABLAKWA AND DR. EDWARD KOFI OMANE BOAMAH VRS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND HON. JAKE OTANKA OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY
ATUGUBA, AG. CJ. (PRESIDING), AKUFFO (MS), JSC, BROBBEY, JSC, ANSAH, JSC, ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC, OWUSU (MS), JSC, DOTSE, JSC, BONNIE, JSC, AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS), JSC
The Plaintiffs challenged the alleged sale and transfer of public land to the 2nd Defendant, arguing that the Minister lacked authority under the Constitution. They relied on provisions including Articles 20, 23, 257, 258, 265, 284, and 296, asserting that the disposal of public lands must follow constitutional procedures. The Supreme Court examined whether the Minister could lawfully direct the disposal of public land. It held that public lands are vested in the President in trust for the people and must be managed through constitutionally mandated bodies like the Lands Commission. The Court emphasized that discretionary powers must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and not arbitrarily. It found that any disposal inconsistent with these requirements would be unconstitutional.
THE REPUBLIC V BANK OF GHANA, THE GOVERNOR (BANK OF GHANA) MR. SIMON P. KYEI, MR. YAW AFRIFA MENSAH, SALIFU M. ABUKARI, MRS. CAROLINE OTOO EX-PARTE: BENJAMIN DUFFOUR
ANSAH, JSC (PRESIDING), ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC, DOTSE, JSC, YEBOAH, JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC
Labour Law - Contempt of Court – Types of Contempt – Civil Contempt – Summary Dismissal During Pendency of Suit – What Constitutes Contempt – Injunction Restraining Disciplinary Proceedings – Effect – Ejection from Official Residence – Absence of Injunction – Standard of Proof – Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Remedies – Reinstatement The applicant, a Deputy Manager of the respondent Bank, occupied an official residence under a licence arrangement. When the Bank ordered staff to vacate the premises for redevelopment, the applicant refused and instituted an action in the High Court. The High Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the Bank from inviting or compelling the applicant to appear before a disciplinary committee but refused to restrain the Bank from ejecting him from the premises. While the suit was pending, the Bank summarily dismissed the applicant and subsequently evicted him. The applicant initiated contempt proceedings. Held: (1) Contempt of court includes acts done during the pendency of proceedings which tend to prejudice, pre‑empt or undermine the authority of the court, even where such acts do not amount to a technical breach of the literal wording of a court order. (2) The respondents’ act of summarily dismissing the applicant, though carried out without convening a disciplinary committee, was disciplinary in substance and connected to the subject matter before the court. It therefore undermined the judicial process and constituted contempt of court. (3) The respondents were not in contempt for ejecting the applicant from the official residence, since the High Court had expressly refused an injunction restraining eviction. In the absence of a prohibitory order, eviction did not amount to contempt. (4) Contempt proceedings are quasi‑criminal and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (5) Reinstatement is a remedy for wrongful or unlawful dismissal and cannot be granted in contempt proceedings alone. Accordingly, the appellant’s appeal for enhanced punishment and reinstatement failed, and the respondents’ cross‑appeal against the finding of contempt in respect of the summary dismissal also failed.
ERNEST ADOFO & ORS. VRS GHANA COCOA BOARD
ATUGUBA, J.S.C. (PRESIDING), MISS AKUFFO, J.S.C., MRS. WOOD, J.S.C., DR. DATE-BAH, J.S.C, ANINAKWAH, J.S.C.
Constitutional Law – Judicial Review – Ouster Clauses – Access to Courts – Supremacy of the Constitution Facts The plaintiffs were former employees of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD). In 1994, they were declared redundant and their employment was terminated during a restructuring exercise. They claimed that they were denied their full terminal benefits and were informed that PNDC Law 125 (Ghana Cocoa Board Re‑Organisation and Indemnity Law, 1985) insulated COCOBOD from liability and barred court actions relating to the termination. They alleged that sections 5 and 6 of PNDC Law 125 ousted the jurisdiction of the courts and discriminated against workers, contrary to the 1992 Constitution. They therefore invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to enforce the Constitution. Held: 1. Section 5 of PNDCL 125 is unconstitutional and void as it wholly ousts the jurisdiction of the courts and denies access to justice, contrary to Articles 1(2), 125(5) and 140(1) of the 1992 Constitution. 2. Unimpeded access to the courts is a core value underlying the Constitution and an essential prerequisite for the enforcement of fundamental human rights and the rule of law. Any statutory provision that totally bars judicial scrutiny of justiciable rights is inconsistent with the spirit and structure of the Constitution. 3. The Supreme Court, by virtue of Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the Constitution, has exclusive original jurisdiction to declare void any law inconsistent with the Constitution, including legislation enacted under previous regimes. 4. Although section 6 of PNDCL 125 also raised constitutional concerns, the Court declined to pronounce on its validity, having granted effective relief by striking down section 5