LAW TIP
When a parent dies without a will, their property passes to the child(ren) -amongst others- who immediately gain legal interest and can sue or defend their title, individually or together. ADISA BOYA v MOHAMMED & ANOR (J4/44/2017) (14/2/2018)
QUOTE FROM JUDGMENT
“Proceeding further, we are of the view that by virtue of the rules on intestacy contained in section 4(1) (a) of the Intestate Succession Law, PNDC Law 111, following the death of the father of the defendants and their mother- the original 1st defendant, the property devolved upon the children and as such they had an immediate legal interest in the property that they are competent to defend and or sue in respect of and in any such case either the children acting together or any of them acting on behalf of the others may seek and or have an order of declaration of title made in their favor.” ADISA BOYA v MOHAMMED & ANOR (J4/44/2017) (14/2/2018)
LAW TIP
Courts value truth over perfection. Minor inconsistencies won’t defeat a truthful case, especially against one built on fraud. Truth still prevails. ADISA BOYA v MOHAMMED & ANOR (J4/44/2017) (14/2/2018)
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“The plaintiff has also sought to impeach the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the ground of inconsistencies in the evidence led by the defendant. In our opinion, the learned justices of the court below adequately dealt with the said ground of complaint at page 492 of the record of appeal. We wish to say further that a careful anxious examination of the rival cases of the parties reveals that whiles the plaintiff’s relied on a grant that was as earlier on expressed in this delivery made in fraudulent circumstances which they tried to conceal in the presentation of their pleading and evidence, the defendants version was marked with truth and that in the circumstances the case of the defendants preponderated over that of the plaintiffs. We do not think that mere insignificant inconsistencies in the presentation of a truthful case would operate to deprive it of the quality of proof that would result in a court preferring a case planked on fraud.” ADISA BOYA v MOHAMMED & ANOR (J4/44/2017) (14/2/2018)
LAW TIP
Once a landowner lawfully grants a specific parcel of land to someone else, they lose title to that land unless there are legal reasons (like fraud/mistake) to void the grant. Without such issues, the original owner no longer has rights over the land. ADISA BOYA v MOHAMMED & ANOR (J4/44/2017) (14/2/2018)
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that proof by either party of a prior grant of the land suffices to deprive the owner of title to the land as the basic principle in such cases is that after an owner has granted a clearly determined area of land in favor of a party, he no longer has title to that parcel of land save in circumstances where the grant is affected by vitiating circumstances none of which was raised by either party to these proceedings.” ADISA BOYA v MOHAMMED & ANOR (J4/44/2017) (14/2/2018)
LAW TIP
Courts must prioritize substantive justice over technicalities, ensuring that all disputes are fully resolved in one action to avoid delays, unnecessary costs, and multiple proceedings. ADISA BOYA v. ZENABU MOHAMMED & ANOR (J4/44/2017) (14/02/2018)
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“Indeed, we are enjoined as judges to avoid multiplicity of actions by the very clear words of Order 1 rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI 47 which are as follows:“These Rules shall be interpreted and applied so as to achieve speedy and effective justice, avoid delays and unnecessary expense, and ensure that as far as possible, all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely, effectively and finally determined and multiplicity of proceedings concerning any of such matters avoided.” The legislative wisdom contained in the above provision which is the overriding principle in civil procedural rules in the High Court cannot be overridden by slavish adherence to mere technicality; our primary concern as judges being to do substantive justice. Then there is the provision of non compliance provided in Order 81 of CI 47 by which for such defaults to invalidate proceedings the Party who raises such a point should not have taken a fresh step in the matter after knowledge of such an irregularity – See: Order 81 rule 2 (2).” ADISA BOYA v. ZENABU MOHAMMED & ANOR (J4/44/2017) (14/02/2018)