-- Table structure for table `courtrulings`
--

CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `courtrulings` (
  `id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `title` text NOT NULL,
  `content` text NOT NULL,
  `link` varchar(225) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `isshow` char(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `author` varchar(225) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `date` varchar(4) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0000',
  `courttype` varchar(15) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `summary` text NOT NULL,
  `presiding` varchar(40) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `casetype` varchar(30) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `subjectmatter` text NOT NULL,
  `caseno` varchar(225) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `counsel1` varchar(225) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `counsel2` varchar(225) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `courtname` varchar(50) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `caseDate` date NOT NULL DEFAULT '0000-00-00',
  `subjectmattertitle` varchar(225) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
  FULLTEXT KEY `title` (`title`,`content`,`author`,`summary`,`presiding`),
  FULLTEXT KEY `title_2` (`title`,`content`,`author`,`presiding`,`subjectmatter`,`caseno`),
  FULLTEXT KEY `summary` (`summary`),
  FULLTEXT KEY `subjectmattertitle` (`subjectmattertitle`),
  FULLTEXT KEY `subjectmattertitle_2` (`subjectmattertitle`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM  DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=7841 ;

--
-- Dumping data for table `courtrulings`
--

INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(1, 'GERSHON YAO ADABUNU vrs SETH DOVIE, PAUL DOVIE', '', 'links/cases/ADABUNA_DOVIE.pdf', 'Yes', 'OMARI-SASU, AKAMBA, TWENEBOA-KODUA', '2004', 'appeal', '<P><b><a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>J.B. AKAMBA, J.A.</a></b>:- This is an appeal against the decision of Mrs. Vida Akoto Bamfo. J.A, sitting as an additional High Court Judge in the High Court Accra dated 22nd March 2002 in which she dismissed the claim of the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff). She then entered judgment in favour of the defendants/respondents (hereinafter referred to simply as defendants) and granted the entire reliefs claimed in their counterclaim.</P>\r\n<P>The plaintiff''s claim against the defendants jointly and severally were for:</P>\r\n<OL>\r\n<LI>&nbsp;"Declaration of title to all that parcel of land situate at North<BR>Odorkor bounded on the North East by Asere Stool land measuring ... "</LI>\r\n</OL>', 'OMARI-SASU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'C/A. NO. 79/2003', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-06-18', ''),
(2, 'TEIKO AKRONG (HEAD & LAWFUL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BOI KWAO FAMILY OF OFANKOR) vrs ADU KOFI DJIN', '', 'links/cases/AKRONG_DJIN.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU (MS), KANYOKE, KUSI-APPIAH', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=KUSI-APPIAH&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>KUSI-APPIAH, J.A.</a> - This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Accra, dated 24 February, 2004. The facts giving rise to this action are very simple. The defendant in this action claimed to have purchased a 30 acre land at Aboasa Medie from Abusuapanyin Boye Okai, the first defendant at the trial court. According to the defendant, he acquired valid title to the land from Abusuapanyin Boye Okai who was held out by the plaintiffs family as their Head. He averred that the land was sold to him with the knowledge, consent and concurrence of the plaintiffs family as the money was used to rehabilitate their family house at Ofankor. The plaintiff, on the other hand contended that, in ...', 'OWUSU (MS), J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/154/2005', 'S.R BREMPONG', 'ADU KOFI DJIN', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-02-16', ''),
(3, 'JOE ANAGBO & ANNOR, EDINA POORT & ANNOR', '', 'links/cases/ANOR_ANOR.pdf', 'Yes', 'TWUMASI, OWUSU-ANSAH, ANIM-YEBOAH', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=TWUMASI&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>TWUMASI, J.A</a> - This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court Accra, delivered on the 11th January 1999. The Plaintiffs/Respondents sued the 1st Defendant! Appellant and one other who has abandoned his appeal for the following reliefs:-  (a) US$14,363.68 being the balance of the purchase price of 80 drums of Ethyl Alcohol sold and delivered by Plaintiffs to the Defendants. (b) Interest on the said amount at the current bank rate. The Plaintiffs/Respondents claimed that the two Defendants, owed them the amount  of money stated in the writ jointly and severally on the basis of an agreement entered into between the respondents as suppliers of certain items of alcohol from Germany to Ghana', 'TWUMASI, J.A.', 'Civil', '', '7/2003', 'TSEGAH', 'AWADZI', 'High Court, Accra', '2004-12-10', ''),
(4, 'HAWA ADAMU vrs. JAFA ADAMS', '', 'links/cases/AMADU_ADAMS.pdf', 'Yes', 'KANYOKE, KUSI-APPIAH, APALOO', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=KANYOKE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>KANYOKE, J.A.</a>:The Plaintiff/Appellant in this case complains of a Judgment of the High Court, Accra, declaring the Defendant/Respondent the owner of H/no. C.444/10, formerly H/No. C.13.13 Kotobabi, Accra. I shall hereafter use the titles of the Plaintiff and the defendant which the parties had at the trial. I may also add that the PlaintiiI and the defendant are according to the evidence on the record a sister and a brother respectively. he pleading and contention of the Plaintiff at the court below ...', 'KANYOKE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/360/05', 'Thomas Hughs', 'Jean Maurellet', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-06-18', ''),
(5, 'ANTHONY MENSAH vrs. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION', '', 'links/cases/anthonyMensah_StateHousing.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, OSEI, DOTSE', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKOTO-BAMFO&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKOTO-BAMFO J.A.</a>:- The Plaintiffs/Respondents hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiffs commenced an action in the High Court against the defendant\r\nappellant hereafter referred to as the defendant for these reliefs:\r\n[1] Declaration that the Plaintiffs are regular tenants of the defendant corporation\r\nand therefore cannot be ejected from the premises numbered 11, Leman Lane, 48\r\nTeak Street, 28 Leman Lane, and 25 Hibiscus Street situate lying being at Dansoman\r\nEstate, Accra which they occupy without an order of the Court.\r\n[2] An order restraining the defendant corporation from ejecting the plaintiffs\r\nfrom the premises aforesaid without an order of the Court.\r\nSubsequently, the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their ...', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/360/2005', 'JOHN AIDOO', 'FRANCIS YEBOAH', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-07-27', ''),
(6, 'THE APOSTLES REVELATION SOCIETY vrs. REV. APOSTLES A.N. TEHN-ADDY, REV. APOSTLES C.K.M. DOVLO AND OTHERS', '', 'links/cases/ARS_APOSTLES.pdf', 'Yes', 'FARKYE, ANIM, HEWARD-MILLS', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ANIM&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ANIM, J.A</a> - This is an appeal from the ruling of the High Court, Fast Track Division, presided over by Mr. Justice R. Asamoah dated 5th February 2004.  On or about the 8th December 2003 the Plaintiff/Respondents hereinafter referred to as ("the Plaintiffs") issued out a writ against the Defendants/Respondents hereinafter referred to as (" the Defendants"). The indorsement on the write reads as follows:-  "The Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants jointly and severally: ....', 'FARKYE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/303/204', 'EBOW QUASHIE', 'ANTHONY FORSON JRN.', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-07-08', ''),
(8, 'CHOU SEN LIN vrs. TONADO ENTERPRISE LTD,T.A. ASIAMA', '', 'links/cases/ChouSen_TonadoEnt.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU (MS), ASIAMAH, HEWARD-MILLS', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=OWUSU&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>OWUSU, J.A</a> - This is an appeal against the Judgment of His Honour Judge Kwadwo\r\nOwusu (as he then was), sitting at the Circuit Court, Tema, dated the 9th day of January\r\n2003. By his writ of summons, the Plaintiff/Appellant, hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff,\r\nissued a writ of summons against the Defendant/Respondent, (to be hereafter simply\r\nreferred to as Defendant for the following reliefs.\r\n(a) Declaration that Plaintiff is the lessee of plot No Ll/8/3, Light Industrial\r\nArea, Tema.\r\n(b) Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendant, its agents, servants etc.\r\nfrom interfering with the said land until the final determination of this sui9t.\r\n(c )"Further or other reliefs."', 'OWUSU (MS), J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/50/05', 'K.E. NUNOO', 'KWESI BLAY', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-11-04', ''),
(10, 'AMELIA AWO DZIDZIENYO vrs. MRS. HILDA ESI TSAKU, KWAKU SOSU', '', 'links/cases/DZIDZIENYO_TSAKU.pdf', 'Yes', 'TWUMASI, OWUSU-ANSAH, ANIM-YEBOAH', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=TWUMASI&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>TWUMASI J.A.</a>:- This is an appeal from a Judgment of an Accra High Court\r\ndelivered on the 31st January 2002. The issue that arose was the extent to\r\nwhich the maxim "res judicata" could be applied to dispose of the litigation ''\r\naffecting landed property. The appellant instituted the proceeding''s against \r\nthe respondents and the latter raised the defence of "res judicata". This was \r\nupheld by the court and the appellant filed this appeal. The facts showed that the', 'TWUMASI, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/178/2004', 'J. BODZA LUMOR', 'RICHARD LARSSEY AGBENYEFIE', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-12-04', ''),
(12, 'ESTATES OF MAD. FAVOUR AMORKOR QUAYE, SAMUEL AYIKWEI QUAYE vrs DANIEL AYIKWEI, REJOICE DEDELI QUAYE', '', 'links/cases/estateofquaye_ayiquaye.pdf', 'Yes', 'MARFUL SAU, FARKYE, ABBAN (MRS)', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=MARFUL SAU&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>MARFUL SAU, .J.</a> - On the 22nd July 2002, the High Court Accra, granted an ex-parte\r\napplication for Letters of Administration jointly to one Daniel Ayi Quaye and Rejoice\r\nDeedei Quaye. Before the Letters of Administration could be issued however, two\r\ncaveats were filed by Samuel Quaye eldest son of the intestate Madam Favour\r\nAmorkor Quaye on the 8th August, 2002 and Emmanuel Okoe Hammond who claimed to\r\nbe the head of family to which the intestate belonged. The second caveat was filed on the\r\n28th August 2002.\r\nOn the 3rd December 2002 the applicants filed a motion ex parte for', 'FARKYE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/229/04', 'DOE TSIKATA', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-02-25', ''),
(13, 'GHANA POST COMPANY LTD vrs. JAMES SUALAH BOSSMAN AND MS. CECILIA FOLY', '', 'links/cases/GHANAPOST_BOSSMAN.pdf', 'Yes', 'TWENEBOA-KODUA, ADDO, QUAYE', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=TWENEBOA-KODUA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>TWENEBOA-KODUA, J.A.</a> - This is an interlocutory appeal from the ruling of the\r\nHigh Court, Tamale. The said ruling delivered on 29 April 2004 was occasioned by an\r\nobjection taken by the plaintiff/appellant {simply called plaintiff hereinafter} to the\r\nadmissibility of a supplementary affidavit in an interpleader claim.\r\nThe plaintiff had successfully sued the defendant and had embarked on the\r\nprocess of execution of the said judgment. In that process the plaintiff had caused\r\nproperty in the nature of a plot of land with an uncompleted building thereon and', 'TWENEBOA-KODUA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/325/05', 'PETER DEI OFEI', 'BEN BALURI SAIBU', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-06-23', ''),
(14, 'SYLVIA GREGORY vrs. NANA KWESI TANDOH, BRIGGET HANSON', '', 'links/cases/GREGORY_HANSON.pdf', 'Yes', 'PIESARE, AKAMBA, KANYOKE', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=KANYOKE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>KANYOKE J.A</a>: This is an appeal against the judgment of the High\r\nCourt, Cape Coast, delivered on the 23rd August 2002 dismissing the\r\nplaintiff /appellant''s claim for "an order directed at the defendants\r\ncompelling them to convey the land on which H/NO. AV 31/3, Ankaful\r\nCape Coast is standing to the plaintiff." The plaintiff/appellant shall herein\r\nafter be referred to simply as the plaintiff and the defendants/respondents as\r\nthe 15t and 2nd defendants respectively. The facts of this case are simple and\r\nare as follows:', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/13/2004', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-07-14', ''),
(15, 'HANNA BASSAM vrs. GEOFFREY NYARI, HULL BLYTH GHANA LTD', '', 'links/cases/hannabassam_hullGhana.pdf', 'Yes', 'ASARE-KORANG, PIESARE, ANIM', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ANIM&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ANIM, J.A.</a>: - The Defendants/Appellants hereinafter referred to as\r\n"The Defendants", aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of the\r\nHigh Court, Sekondi, given on 18th February 2005, have appealed to this\r\nCourt.\r\nIn the Notice of Appeal filed on 28/4/2005 two grounds of Appeal\r\nwere filed as follows, namely:-\r\n[a] That the general damages of ¢55,000.000.00 under paragraph 2\r\nabove are too excessive in the circumstance.', 'ASARE KORANG, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/179/2005', 'ACKAAH GYASI', 'ADDAE ABOAGYE', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-12-15', ''),
(16, 'E. OSEI JUMAH & 6 ORS vrs. PAUL DODZI & 2 ORS', '', 'links/cases/JUMAH_DODZI.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU (MS), PIESARE, APALOO', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=PIESARE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>PIESARE, J.A.</a>: - This is an appeal against the judgment of the Circuit Court,\r\nAccra dated 19th June, 2001, brought by the 15t Defendant/Appellant Paul Dodzi.\r\n[a] The learned trial Judge erred on the issue of the capacity [locus standi]\r\nof the Plaintiffs to institute this action against the 15t Defendant.\r\n[b] The judgement is against the weight of the evidence.\r\n[c] The learned trial judge failed to look at the evidence before her in its\r\nentirety and thereby arrived at a wrong conclusion on the question of\r\nwhether or not the 15t defendant gave his name for the two rooms which\r\nare in dispute.', 'OWUSU (MS), J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/228/2004', 'LOUIS DOGBE', 'ASUMADU MENSAH', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-02-16', ''),
(17, 'KOTO KWAME AMORIM vrs GELLOQ GHANA LTD', '', 'links/cases/kotokwame_GELLOQ.pdf', 'Yes', 'GBADEGBE, ADDO, ANIM YEBOAH', '2007', 'appeal', 'The judgment of the Court was read by <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ANIN YEBOAH&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>Anin Yeboah </a>J.A., as follows - This is an appeal against the judgement of the\r\nHigh Court, Tema. The facts giving rise to the issue of the writ of summons herein in the court below though unhappy\r\nto relate are simple and devoid of any complexity. Victoria Koto and Emmanuel Koto both died in a road traffic accident\r\nin the Kpong-Tema Motor road as a result of which the respondent herein, Kwame Koto Amorin issued a writ in his \r\ncapacity as administrator of the two estates claiming..', 'GBADEGBE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/73/2005', 'CHARLES HAYIBOR', 'WUTOR', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-01-26', ''),
(18, 'MERCHANT BANK {GH} LTD vrs. SAOUD BROTHERS & SONS,NABIL G. SAOUD,THEOPHILUS NORTEY,GEORGE F. SAOUD', '', 'links/cases/MERCHANTBANK_SAOUD.pdf', 'Yes', 'GBADEGBE, DOTSE, ANIN-YEBOAH', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=GBADEGBE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>GBADEGBE J.A. </a>read the judgment of the court as follows: The question that arises for our determination in these proceedings turns on section 17 of the Bodies Corporate (Official Liquidation) Act, 1963, Act 180 that is expressed in the following words: "On the commencement of a winding up, no action or civil proceedings against the company, other than proceedings by a secured creditor for the realization of the security, shall be proceeded with or commenced save by leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court may impose."', 'GBADEGBE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/92/2006', 'KWAME A. BOAFO', 'STANLEY AMARTEFIO', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-01-01', ''),
(19, 'NKD FINANCIAL SERVICES vrs. OTEMMS CO. LTD., MARGARET OKU (MRS.), PHILIP OKU', '', 'links/cases/NDK_OTEMMS.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, DOTSE, MARFUL-SAU', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKAMBA, J.A.</a>: This is an interlocutory appeal against the ruling of Mrs. Gertrude\r\nTorkornoo . given in the Fast Track High Court Accra dated 29th  July 2005.\r\nThe facts of this case are devoid of any complexities and run thus. Between the 14th of March and 30th September 2003 the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter simply the plaintif''f) extended credit facilities in the sum of ¢937,373,000 to the 1st defendant/respondent\r\ncompany (hereinafter simply the 151 defendant). The repayment of the facilities was guaranteed by the 2nd and 3rd defendants.', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/99/2006', 'PEASAH BOADU', 'ATTA AKYEA', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-07-07', ''),
(20, 'NDK FINANCIAL SERVICES vrs. YAW YIADOM CONSTRUCTION & ORS ', '', 'links/cases/NDKFinancial_YawYiadomConstr.pdf', 'Yes', 'PIESARE, KANYOKE, APALOO', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=APALOO&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>APALOO, J.A.</a>:- The Plaintiff/Respondent company is a non bank financial institution which extends credit facilities to individuals and other corporate bodies. The 1st  Defendant/Appellant is a construction company whose managing director is\r\nthe 2nd Defendant/Appellant. The 3rd defendant/Appellant is an investor of the\r\nPlaintiff/Respondent. For purpose of brevity the parties shall be referred to simply\r\nas Respondent and Appellants.\r\nThe 3rd Appellant as investor of the Respondent introduced 1st and 2nd\r\nAppellants to the Respondent to enable the 2nd Appellant access a loan for the', 'PIESARE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/24/2006', 'YOLI KULENBI', 'PEASAH BOADU', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-03-09', ''),
(21, 'MASAI DEVELOPERS & ORS vrs. MULTIMEDIA BROADCASTING & ORS', '', 'links/cases/ORS_MULTIMEDIA.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADINYIRA (MRS), DOTSE, HEWARD-MILLS (MRS)', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=HEWARD-MILLS&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>HEWARD-MILLS J.</a> This is an appeal by the Defendant/Appellants (hereinafter called the defendants) against 6 rulings made by the trial judge during the cross examination of the second plaintiff who together with others has instituted and action for defamation against the\r\ndefendant/appellants. The defamatory words were set out in schedule A, schedule B and in paragraph 19 of\r\nthe statement of claim. The statements were said to have been made during broadcast on various dates and also published on a website belonging to the first defendant. The statements were produced in court on tapes together with transcripts', 'ADINYIRA (MRS), J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/26/05', 'Gabriel Pwamang', 'Barton Oduro', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-01-16', ''),
(22, 'MADAM CATHERINE OSEI vrs. FRANK ADDO', '', 'links/cases/OSEI_ADDO.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADINYIRA (MRS), DOTSE, HEWARD-MILLS (MRS)', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ADINYIRA(MRS)&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ADINYIRA (MRS.), J.A.</a>. - On 12 March 2004, the High Court Accra gave a ruling in which it refused to grant an application for an interim injunction. ''The ruling is thE\r\nsubject of this appeal. The plaintiff/appellant [hereinafter appellant] had sued the defendant/respondent\r\n[hereinafter respondent] per her writ of summons for:\r\n"(1) the plaintiff s claim is for a declaration for the cancellation of the lease agreement between the appellant and the respondent on the grounds of unconscionability.', 'ADINYIRA (MRS), J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/98/2005', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-02-11', ''),
(23, 'PHILIP ISRAEL vrs. NESTLE GHANA LTD.', '', 'links/cases/philipisrael_nestleghana.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARYEETEY, ASARE-KORANG, ABANN (MRS)', '2001', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ARYEETEY&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ARYEETEY, J.A.</a> : Until his appointment with the respondent company as foreman  was terminated on 4th\r\nDecember, 1997 the appellant had worked with the company for 26 years.  As production foreman and therefore belonging\r\nto Senior Category B of the defendant company the service conditions, which governed his relationship with the \r\ncompany, was the CONDITIONS OF SERVICE FOR  SENIOR STAFF OF NESTLE GHANA LIMITED, exhibit  5\r\nappeared at page 85 of the record if appeal. ', 'ARYEETEY, J.A.', 'Civil', '', '39/2002', 'AYIKOI OTOO', 'KORANTANG ATAA', 'Court of Appeal', '2001-12-04', ''),
(24, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. THE CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEF', '', 'links/cases/THE_REPUBLIC_Vs_CENTRAL_REGIONAL_HOUSE_OF_CHIEFS.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARYEETEY, QUAYE, ANIM-YEBOAH', '2007', 'appeal', '', 'ARYEETEY, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/6/2006', 'GUSTAV ADDINGTON', 'KWABENA OWUSU', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-03-09', ''),
(25, 'SHERRY AYITEY vrs. GIHOC DISTILLERIES CO. LTD', '', 'links/cases/sherryAyitey_GIHOC.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, ASARE KORANG, OSEI', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKOTO-BAMFO&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.</a>- On the 13th of September 2001, the appointment of the\r\nplaintiff/appellant (who we shall hereafter call the plaintiff) was terminated after having\r\nbeen asked to proceed on leave in February 2001.\r\nBcing naturally unhappy at the turn of events, she caused a writ of summons to be\r\nissued against GIHOC Distilleries the defendant/respondent, who, for ease of reference,\r\nshall be called the defendant claiming, inter alia, for a declaration that the termination\r\nwas unfair/wrongful, alternatively that the termination was in breach of her fundamental\r\nhuman rights and Articles 23 & 191 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.', 'ASARE KORANG, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/174/2004', 'D.O Lamptey', 'B.W Tamaklo', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-11-24', ''),
(26, 'KWAME SIISI vrs. PROPHET K. BOATENG APPIMENYIM via SHAMA', '', 'links/cases/SIISI_APPIMENYIM.pdf', 'Yes', 'ASARE KORANG, KANYOKE, MARFUL-SAU', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ASARE KORANG&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ASARE KORANG, J.A.</a>. - The Plaintiff/Respondent (Respondent for short hereinafter)\r\ndescribing himself as the head of the PITSIR KWAATA ANONA family of Upper\r\nInchaban sued the Defendant, inter alia, for a declaration of title to a piece or parcel of\r\nfamily land called ''SANDFILED'' situate AT Upper Inchaban.\r\nIn his Statement of Defence, the Defendant denied that the respondent was the\r\nhead of the family aforementioned and insisted that the legitimate head of family was one\r\nEbusuapanyin Kofi Mensah, Applicant/Appellant herein (to be called the Appellant\r\nhereafter).', 'ASARE KORANG, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/93/2006', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-11-24', ''),
(27, 'SYLVANUS JUXON-SMITH vrs. K.L.M ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES', '', 'links/cases/SMITH_KLM.pdf', 'Yes', 'OMARI-SASU, AKAMBA, TWENEBOA-KODUA', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>J.B.AKAMBA, J.A.</a>: This appeal comes from the Accra Fast Track High Court and it is against the judgment delivered on 17th June 2003 by <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ANSAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>Julius Ansah, J.A.</a>, sitting as an additional judge of the High Court. •\r\nThe plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to simply as plaintiff) issued a writ of summons on 13th of December 2002 against the defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) in the Fast Track High Court Accra, claiming the following:\r\n" (1) Plaintiff claim against the defendant is for payment of $600,000 US dollars or its cedi equivalent being general damages for deliberate prevention of the plaintiff by the defendant from boarding defendant''s airline which occasioned defendant''s loss of lucrative contract in Brussels.', 'OMARI-SASU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/18/2004', 'Kenneth D. Laryea', 'Prosper Nyahe', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-06-18', ''),
(28, 'KWAKU TAMAKLOE vrs. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES ', '', 'links/cases/Tamakloe_METHODIST.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADINYIRA (MRS), AMONOO-MONNEY, ANIM', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ANIM&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ANIM, J.A.</a> - This is an appeal from the ruling of the High Court, Accra, dated 19th March 2003, presided over by Her Lordship Justice <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=INKUMSAH-ABBAN, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>Inkumsah-Abban</a>.\r\nThe brief facts are that on 15t February 2002, the Plaintiff/Appellant (hereinafter\r\nreferred to as "the Plaintiff'') commenced action at the High Court, Accra, against the Defendants/Respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendants). By his writ of summons the Plaintiff asked for:-\r\n(a) Damages for unlawful ejectment.', 'ADINYIRA (MRS), J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/11/2004', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-07-23', ''),
(30, 'NIl KPOBI TETTEY TSURU III vrs. NIl AGO SAI (PER JOSEPH NIl TORGBOR)', '', '../links/cases/TSURU_SAI.pdf', 'Yes', 'ABBAN (MRS), APPAU, DUOSE', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DUOSE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DUOSE, J.A.</a>:- In a writ of summons issued on 18-01-94, the Plaintiff the Chief of La sued asking for the following reliefs:\r\n(l) Declaration of title to all ogbojo lands.\r\n(2) Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from disposing of ogbojo lands without the approval of the Plaintiff. \r\nAt the close of evidence the trial High Court gave judgment to the defendant.\r\nAggrieved by the said judgment the Plaintiff/Appellant filed the following eight grounds\r\nof appeal.', 'HENRIETTA ABBAN (MRS), J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/228/2004', 'WILLIAM ADDO', 'POXBY ANYETEI AKO', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-01-17', ''),
(31, 'MADAM KATE AMPONSAH vrs. EDMUND ASANTE APPIAH ', '', '../links/cases/amponsah_mansah.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, DOTSE, MARFUL-SAU', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKAMBA, J.A.</a>: This appeal is against the decision of the Koforidua High\r\nCourt delivered on 1ih of December 2003 before K.A Acquaye J. In the\r\njudgment the court granted the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter simply\r\nreferred as the plaintiff) two of the reliefs endorsed in the writ of summons\r\nand ordered as follows:\r\n(1) "That the plaintiff recovers possession of all that piece or parcel of\r\nland at Apedwa and bounded on one side by the property of Amma\r\n', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/55/2005', 'ASANTE ANSOONG', 'KWESI AMOAKO', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-07-07', ''),
(32, 'THEODORE ADJEI OSAE (DR.), TREBI ASIIITEY, T.S.OSAE vrs NUMO NORTEY AD.JEIFIO, EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED, NUMO ADJEI KWANKO II', '', '../links/cases/THEODORE_ADJEIFIO.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKUFFO, BROBBEY, ANINAKWA, ASIAMAH', '2008', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BROBBEY&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>BROBBEY, J.S.C:</a> On I7th November 2000. <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ASARE KORANG, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>Asare-Korang J </a>(as he then was) entered judgement for the appellants who sued the first two respondents amongst others for the a declaration of'' title to the Land. a description of'' which was endorsed on the writ of summons and perpetual injunction restraining them, their servants, agents or assigns from having anything to do with the land. Dissatisfied with the judgment. the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal and entered. Judgement in their favour. The\r\nappellants then appealed to this court against the decision of ''the Court of''Appeal.', 'AKUFFO (MS), J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/22/2007', 'E.A. ACKAM', 'OSAFO BUABENG', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-05-07', ''),
(33, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. MOHAMMED SULEMANA', '', '../links/cases/republic_sulemana.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARYEETEY, OSEI, DOTSE', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DOTSE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DOTSE J.A.</a> - On the 2ih day of November, 2001 NASIRU WAZIRI,\r\nthe Applicant in a contempt application filed an Appeal against the Judgment of\r\n. the High Court, Accra presided over by <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=EBRASAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>Ebrasah, J.</a> dated 29-10-2001 upon the\r\nfollowing grounds:\r\n(i) "That the learned Judge erred in law in ordering recovery of possession\r\nof House No. B.518/24 Abeka, Accra in favour of the contemnor\r\nwithout giving a hearing to the Applicant thereby violating the\r\nApplicant''s constitutional rights."\r\n(ii) That the Learned Judge lacked the jurisdiction to set aside the\r\ndecision of His Lordship <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=GBADEGBE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>Gbadegbe J.A.</a> (sitting as an additional\r\nJudge of the High Court) made on 2ih July, 2000.\r\n(iii) That the Learned Judge misdirected himself in law on the nature and\r\nimport of the said decision made on 2ih July 2000 which misdirection', 'ARYEETEY, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/132/2004', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-07-16', ''),
(71, 'C.C.W. LIMITED  vrs. ACCRA METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY', '', '../links/cases/CCW Ltd vs AMA.pdf', 'Yes', 'FARKYE, ASARE-KORANG, KANYOKE', '2004', 'appeal', 'R U L I N G:	This ruling is in respect of Motion on Notice for Stay of Execution\r\npending appeal which was filed on 22/7/2004.\r\n\r\n	On the 9th of June, 2004, the Fast Track High Court, Accra gave Judgment in favour  of the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent against the Defendant/Appellant/\r\nAppellant for an amount of 12 million US. Dollars.\r\n', 'FARKYE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H3/532/04', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-07-22', ''),
(72, 'CLEMENT AGYEMANG vrs.\r\nBENJAMIN APPIAH, JOB ADDAI AMANFO', '\r\n\r\n\r\n', '../links/cases/CLEMENT AGYEMANG.pdf', 'Yes', 'ANINAKWAH, AKOTO-BAMFO, ASARE KORANG', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ANINAKWAH&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ANINAKWAH, J.S.C</a>:-   This appeal is from the ruling of the High Court, Sunyani dated 29th August, 2001, dismissing the Interpleader claims of the Claimants/Appellants {hereinafter referred to as Appellants.\r\n           On 19, July, 1999, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor/Respondent {hereinafter referred to as Respondent} obtained judgment for the sum of ¢51,379,750.00 against the Defendant/Judgment/Debtors in a running down suit.  Defendant/Judgment/Debtors did not appeal against the said judgment.\r\n', 'ANINAKWAH, J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'H1/104/04', 'PETER DEI OFEI', 'AYITEY ARMAH TETTEH', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-10-29', ''),
(73, 'COMFORT NORKAI BANOR vrs. AMASSEY COMMEY, ENOCK OKPOTI ODAI,  AHIETEY COMMEY ', '', '../links/cases/COMFORT NORKAI.pdf', 'Yes', 'FARKYE, ADDO, QUAYE', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ADDO&judgementtype=Presiding Judge" class=judge> ADDO, J.A.</a>:-\r\n      \r\nMy Lords, this is an appeal against the decision against B.O. Tetteh J. Chairman of the Regional Tribunal sitting as additional Circuit Judge.  The plaintiff in this case, Comfort Banor has brought this action against the defendants jointly and severally for general damages for trespass  ¢1,000,000.00 {One Million Cedis} being cost of materials damaged and perpetual injunction.  The plaintiff by her statement of claim states that she is the incumbent head of the Lartey-Cudjoe family Osu.  She says the land the subject-matter was acquired by her maternal grandfather, Lartey-Cudjoe in 1938.  According to her the transaction was covered by a written memorandum dated 21st March, 1938 by ...', 'FARKYE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'CA. 10/2000', 'R.A. OKARTEI-AKKO', 'SAMMY AGBODO', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-03-24', ''),
(74, 'DAVID ANDREAS HESSE vrs. INVESTCOM CONSORTIUM HOLDING S.A., SCANCOM LTD.       \r\n', '', '../links/cases/DAVID ANDREAS HESSE.pdf', 'Yes', 'ABBAN, OWUSU, DUOSE', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DUOSE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DUOSE, J.A.</a>:-  On the 2nd day of April, the Commercial Division of the High Court, Accra, entered interlocutory judgment against the 1st Defendant in default of defence.\r\nSubsequently on the 26-04-07, the same court refused to set aside the interlocutory judgment stating “No new issue is raised in this application to set aside that Order.”\r\nThe 1st Defendant/Appellant being dissatisfied with the ruling of the Commercial Court Accra dated 2nd April 2007, filed an appeal against it on 07-05-07 simultaneously with application for stay of proceedings pending appeal.', 'DOTSE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H3/379/07', 'NTRAKWAH', 'BENSON NUTSUKPUIE', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-11-09', ''),
(75, 'DAVID ASARE vrs. MIKE SOMANI                   \r\n', '', '../links/cases/DAVID_VS_MIKE.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, KUSI-APPIAH, DOTSE', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DOTSE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DOTSE , J.A.</A>:-    This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Accra dated 16th July, 2004. In that judgment, the learned trial justice of Appeal, sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court Judge, delivered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent, hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff and against the Defendant/Appellant hereafter referred to as the Defendant.\r\n\r\n', 'DOTSE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/37/2007', 'OWUSU-ANSAH', 'DESMOND QUAYNOR', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-07-13', ''),
(76, 'DON ACKAH vrs. PERGAH TRANSPORT LTD. & 2 OTHERS   ', '        \r\n', '../links/cases/Don_Ackah_Vrs_Pergah_Transport.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, QUAYE, MARFUL-SAU', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=MARFUL-SAU&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>MARFUL-SAU J.A.</a>\r\nThe fundamental issue raised in this appeal for determination is who owns house no. plot 642 East Legon Accra.   Is it owned by the Respondent herein or the1st Appellant?  From the record of appeal the facts of the case simply are as follows: - SG.SSB Bank Ltd. who were the 3rd Defendants in the trial offered to sell house No. Plot 642, East Legon Accra.  The house was at the time occupied by the 2nd Appellant herein.  The purchase price of the house was fixed at ¢330,000,000.00.   This transaction was in year 1999.  The Respondent herein arranged for a loan of ¢200,000,000.00 from Unique Trust Financial Services for the 1st Appellant, which amount was paid to SG SSB Bank Ltd. by 1st Appellant as part payment of the purchased price.  After about four (4) years, the balance of ¢130,000,000.00 was paid by the Respondent again on behalf of the 1st Appellant. Meanwhile the 1st ', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'HI/185/07', 'JULIUS HUKPORTI', 'K. ASIRIFIE', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-12-13', ''),
(77, 'E.B. TIMOTHY KWAME BOTCHEY & ANOR …  PLAINTIFF   vrs. JOSEPH BANFUL & 5ORS.                                  \r\n', '', '../links/cases/EB TIMOTHY.pdf', 'Yes', 'ANSAH, ANINAKWAH, DOTSE', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DOTSE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DOTSE, J.A.</a>  -  In this case, the Plaintiffs/Appellants. (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiffs) claimed the following reliefs at the High Court Agona Swedru against the Defendant/Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Defendants):-\r\n(1)	1st Plaintiff’s claim against the defendants, jointly and severally is for 10 \r\nmillion cedis as damages for trespass to 1st Plaintiff’s land situate, lying\r\nand being at Gomoa Buduburam and measuring 640 acres more or less on\r\nmile 20 on the Winneba-Accra  Road near Gomoa Buduburam meant for\r\ncattle Rearing and known as “Nyame Na Dom.”\r\n', 'ANSAH, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', '141/2004', 'CAB ADDAE', 'KWAKU BAAH', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-12-17', ''),
(78, 'EBUSUAPANYIN KWAME TWI  vrs. \r\nESI NANA [DECEASED]                   \r\nSUBSTITUTED BY KOFI DADZIE ', '', '../links/cases/EBUSUAPANYIN.pdf', 'Yes', 'GBADEGBE, ASARE KORANG, OSEI', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ASARE KORANG&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>\r\nASARE KORANG, J.A.</a>  -  This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court that upheld the claim of the plaintiff to whom I shall for convenience in this proceedings refer as the respondent and to the defendants in the court below similarly refer as the appellants.  In the decision the subject matter of these proceedings the learned trial judge n a considered opinion delivered at the end of a full scale trial upheld the claim of the respondent.  It appears from the judgment on which this appeal turns that she took the view that there was a previous decision which the parties before her fought in the same ', 'GBADEGBE, J.A.', '', '', 'HI/232/2004', 'IVAN QUANSAH', 'PETER ABABIO', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-06-17', ''),
(79, 'EXCEL LOGISTICS GH. LTD  vrs. GPRTU OF TUC (GHANA BURKINA FASO HAQRBOUR BRANCH)', '', '../links/cases/EXCEL LOGISTICS GH VS GPRTU HARBOUR BRANCH.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, KUSI-APPIAH, DOTSE', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKAMBA, J.A.</a>: This is a motion filed against the hearing of this appeal. Before dealing with the substantive appeal filed on 3rd September 2004 at the High Court Tema against the judgment delivered on 27th August 2004 by the said High Court, it is important to first surmount this procedural obstacle raised by way of preliminary objection which we intend to address.\r\n\r\nThe plaintiffs/respondents (hereinafter simply referred as the respondents) filed a separate and independent notice of their intention to rely upon a ', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', '', 'Joe Addae Aboagye', 'Oseawuo Chambers', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-07-13', ''),
(37, 'RICHARD BUTT vrs. BARCLAYS BANK OF GHANA LTD', '', '../links/cases/butt_barclays.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, APPAU, MARFUL SAU', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKAMBA, J.A.</a>: This case has very close links with the Supreme Court decision in\r\nRichard Butt vs. Chapel Hill Properties and Devi Charity Butt, Civil Appeal No\r\nCA 3/2003 of 215t July 2004 and reported at page 636 of the (2003-2004) Supreme\r\nCourt of Ghana Law Reports. Apart from the present defendant/respondent (simply\r\nrespondent) not being a party in the earlier proceedings, the facts and persons\r\ninvolved in this suit are but the same as those in that decision. It is also evident\r\nthat the matters which were the subject matter of the Supreme Court decision as in\r\nthe present matter took place between 1994 and 1996 hence the findings of fact are', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/124/2006', 'Anthony Ampaw', 'Charles Hayibor', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-05-28', ''),
(38, 'OBENG OMONO ASAMOAH vrs. OSEI AGYEMANG', '', '../links/cases/asamoah_agyemang.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, KUSI-APPIAH, DOTSE', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>KUSI-APPIAH, J.A.</a> This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the\r\ndecision of the High Court, Mampong/Ashanti dated 9th November,\r\n200S.By his writ of summons, the plaintiff claimed against the defendant\r\nfor:-\r\n"(1) A declaration that plaintiff is the joint-owner/proprietor of\r\nUnity Preparatory School, Mampong/Ashanti.\r\n(2) Damages for infringement of plaintiffs property rights,\r\n(3) Any other order or orders considered necessary for doing justice\r\nparticularly with reference to Order 63 rule 6 of the Rules. _."\r\n', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/132/06', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-03-29', ''),
(39, 'MADAM AKOSUA DEDAA vrs. MADAM YAA TIWAA', '', '../links/cases/dedaa_tiwaa.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, KUSI-APPIAH, DOTSE', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKAMBA, J.A.</a>: This is an. appeal from the j udgrnent of the High-Court Nkawkaw\r\ndelivered on 25th February 2002 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and dismissing\r\nthe counterclaim by the defendants/appellants.\r\nA brief summary of the background to this case at the trial court will certainly help us\r\nappreciate matters. The plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter simply the respondent)\r\ninitiated her claims against the defendants/appellants (hereinafter simply the\r\nappellants) jointly and severally at the Nkawkaw High Court for the following reliefs:\r\n(i) Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at\r\nKyemase Abetifi-Kwahu (plot No 39) with buildings thereon bounded on the North\r\nby a road measuring 100 feet more or less, on the south by plot No 40 measuring 100', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/277/2004', 'G.K Quaye', 'F. Awuah Agyemang', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-07-13', ''),
(40, 'ALEC GRANT SAM vrs. UNILEVER {GH} LTD', '', '../links/cases/ALEC.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, QUAYE, ASAMOAH', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>QUAYE, J.A.</a>  -   Trial in the lower court terminated in this action with the delivering of the judgment on 6th July 2001.   A notice of appeal against the trial court’s judgment was filed on or about 10th July 2001 by the 3rd defendant setting down as his principal ground that the judgment cannot be supported with regard to the evidence.  The 2nd defendant also filed his notice of appeal on 24th September 2001.\r\n	In the trial court, the plaintiffs contended that their great-grand father, W.E. Sam, died testate on 11th July 1906 and left the disputed property known as Sam’s Hill situate at Low Town, Cape Coast to their grand-father Thomas Birch Freeman Sam and his heirs ', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/234/04', 'JUSTINE AMENUVOR', 'K.O. AMPONSAH', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-11-17', ''),
(674, 'Ashby, Warner & Co Ltd v Simmons', '', 'links/cases/Ashby.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER, GREENE,  SCOTT LJJ ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Companies – Charges requiring registration – Charge on book debts – Authority to debtor to pay creditor a named sum out of next payment due – Companies Act 1929 (c 23), s 79(6). ', 'GREER LJJ ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-11', 'COMPANY; Charges '),
(675, 'Ashton and Others v Wainwright', '', 'links/cases/Ashton and Others v Wainwright.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Solicitors – Negligence – Registration of club – Duty of solicitor.', 'GODDARD J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-12', 'PROFESSIONS; Lawyers  '),
(42, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. ALFRED NII LANTE ADDY                         ', '', '../links/cases/ALFRED N. LANTE.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU-ANSAH, PIESARE, APALOO', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=APALOO&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>APALOO, J.A.</a>  -   In a ruling dated 22nd  March, 2005 the High Court Accra presided over by His Lordship <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKWAA, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>Kofi Akwaa J</a> held as follows:\r\n“It is clear that the Plaintiffs herein not being parties in that                                  suit are not entitled to derive any benefit from the judgment                in this  said suit.  It follows that any order made under this               judgment in favour of the applicants is null and void…..                   Application is therefore refused and Respondent discharged.”   \r\n', 'APALOO, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'HI/334/05', 'ALBERT ADAARE', 'WILLIE AMARFIO', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-05-12', ''),
(43, 'ALHAJI BUBAKARI  vrs. ADISA ABUBAKARI         ', '', '../links/cases/ALHAJI_ABUBAKARI_vrs_ADISA_ABUBAKARI.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, DOTSE, APALOO', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DOTSE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DOTSE, J.A.</a>:-    This is an appeal by the Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant, hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff against the Judgment of the High Court, Sekondi dated 23rd day of July, 2004.  The grounds of appeal are:-\r\n\r\n	1.	The Learned trial Judge erred when he held that Plaintiff pays ¢5 million.\r\n\r\n2.	The learned trial Judge ought to have adequately considered the relative 			incomes of the Parties before making the awards.\r\n', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/152/2005', 'Kofi Diaba', 'E.K.S. Haizel', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-05-18', ''),
(44, 'ALI ABDUL KARIM  vrs. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, GHANA RISONS                                       \r\n', '', '../links/cases/ALI A. KARIM.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, PIESARE, BROWN', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BROWN,&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>IRIS MAY BROWN, J</a>  -  This is an appeal against a ruling of the High Court.  The Appellant between the months of July and August 1989 was convicted and received the following sentences:\r\n\r\n                    7 years on the 26th of July for the possession fake Bank notes,\r\n                    25 years on the 8th of August for abetment of robbery and\r\n                    Death sentence on the 21st of August for robbery.\r\n', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/241/05', 'HELEN ZIWU', 'THOMAS HUGHES', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-05-05', ''),
(45, 'ALICE ABEDI ADDAE vrs. ADWOA AGYEKUMWAA ,ELIZABETH KORANTENG   \r\n', '', '../links/cases/ALICE ABEDI.pdf', 'Yes', 'PIESARE, DOTSE, DUOSE', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DUOSE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DUOSE J.A.</a>:-   On the 11th day of November 2006 Accra delivered a Judgment against the Plaintiff-Appellant.\r\n	At the trial the following claims were laid for the Plaintiff/Appellant.\r\n	(a)  Declaration of title to the property described in paragraph 5 of the\r\n                  Statement of Claim with the buildings thereon known as H/No. C. 30/18.\r\n(b)	Recovery of possession of the house from the defendants.\r\n(c)	Perpetual injunction etc.\r\n', 'PIESARE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/209/2007', 'AGYABENG AKRASI', 'K.A. YANKYERE', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-05-08', ''),
(46, 'ALPHONESO O. ARYEETEY,  JOHN O. ARYEETEY vrs. ROYAL INVESTMENT CO. LTD. & 18 ORS', '', '../links/cases/Alphoneso Aryeetey v. Royal Invest. Ltd & 18 ors.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, OSEI, ASAMOAH', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ASAMOAH&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ASAMOAH, J</a>  -   The Plaintiffs/Respondents described themselves as the Administrators of the Estate of the late Thomas Jonas Aryeetey who died in or about 1999 in Accra.  The 1st Defendant/Appellant is a tenant in 19 stores in Houses No. D. 731/4, D. 731/4A and D. 731/4B whilst the rest of the Defendants/Appellants are her subtenants.', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'HI/201/2005', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-11-29', ''),
(47, 'ELIZABETH AMELEY STEPHEN vrs ALL BROTHERS BOOKS & STATIONERY LIMITED         \r\n', '', '../links/cases/AMELEY.pdf', 'Yes', 'ASARE KORANG, QUAYE, DUOSE', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ASARE KORANG&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ASARE KORANG, J.A.</a>:-  In  this application, the plaintiff/appellant/applicant (Applicant for short) prays this court to appoint a Receiver and Manager in respect of House No. 583/4, South Liberia Road/Accra, the subject matter of a dispute between her and the defendants/respondents/respondent (respondents for short).\r\nThe duties to be performed are spelt out in the applicant’s motion on notice as follows:\r\n	“Collect arrears of rent from the Respondents from the date of\r\n              Judgment in Suit No, L634/98, have regard to Legitimate \r\n', 'ASARE KORANG, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H3/525/05', 'T.A. NELSON-COFIE', 'JOSHUA NIMAKO', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-01-24', ''),
(48, 'AMORA MUMUNI vrs. ALHAJI ADAMU IDDRISU etc.', '', '../links/cases/AMORA MUMUNI.pdf', 'Yes', 'OSEI, ANIM, APALOO', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=APALOO&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>APALOO, J.A.</a>  -  This ruling emanates from a preliminary objection filed in this Court pursuant to Rule 16 of C.I. 19, the Court of Appeal Rules as amended.\r\n	The preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal stated as follows:-\r\n	“(1)  That at all times material to the date when the Notice of Appeal\r\n                     which is the basis of the appeal before this honourable Court was\r\n                     filed, the Solicitors who filed the same had no authority to file it,\r\n                     the party on whose behalf the said Notice of Appeal was filed \r\n', 'OSEI, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/262/2004', 'INUSA FUSEINI', 'COSMOS APENGNO', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-07-26', ''),
(49, 'AMEGA KOFI TOGOBO AND OTHERS vrs. TOGBUI NYAHO TAMAKLOE OF WHUTI AND OTHERS (IN THE MATTER OF ANLO AWOAMEFIA STOOL)', '', '../links/cases/ANLO AWOAMEFIA STOOL.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, ASARE KORANG, OSEI', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ASARE KORANG&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ASARE KORANG, J.A.</a>  -   On 26th November,  2003,  <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=APALOO, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>Apaloo, J </a>(as he then was) sitting in the High Court, Ho, found the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents/Appellants (hereafter referred to as the Appellants) guilty of contempt and fined each of them ¢1,000,000.00 (One Million cedis) or in default a sentence of one month’s imprisonment.  In addition, the Respondents were each mulcted in costs of ¢300,000.00 (three hundred thousand cedis) and bonded to be of good behaviour for 12 months, in default a sentence of 3 months imprisonment.', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'HI/211/2003', 'JONES MENSAH', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-04-15', ''),
(50, 'ANTARTIC CONTRACT WORKS LTD vrs. PLANT POOL LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/ANTARTIC.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, OSEI, ASAMOAH', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ASAMOAH&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ASAMOAH, J.</a>  -  In this application, the Defendant/Judgment /Debtor/Applicant (Applicant hereafter) seeks a stay of execution in respect of the decision of His Lordship <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=APPAU, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>Yaw Appau</a> given on the 23rd December 2004 in favour of the Plaintiff/Judgment/Creditor/Respondent (Respondent hereafter)\r\n        The Respondent had applied for and obtained summary judgment in a liquidated claim.  And the Applicants motion for stay of execution in the Court below having been refused, the repeats the same before this Court.\r\n', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H3/494/2005', 'YONNY KULENDI', 'REX BRUCE', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-07-26', '');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(51, 'ANTHONY KWADWO BOAKYE vrs. NANA TUTUYEHENE', '', '../links/cases/ANTHONY KWADO.pdf', 'Yes', 'FARKYE, ABBAN, DOTSE', '2005', 'appeal', 'R U L I N G  -   This  ruling is in respect of Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction and appointment of Receiver and Manager.    \r\n        On 15th November 2005, the Plaintiff/Respondent/Applicant herein by his counsel moved this court for an order of injunction and for the appointment of a receiver and manager pending the hearing and determination of his appeal at the Supreme Court.\r\nThe claim which gave rise to this application was instituted by the Plaintiff/Respondent herein (herein called the applicant) at the Kumasi High Court against the ', 'FARKYE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H3/542/2005', 'S. ADDO', 'W.A.N. ADUMUA-BOSSMAN', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-11-17', ''),
(52, 'THE CHURCH OF APOSTLES REVELATION SOCIETY vrs. REV. APOSTLE A.N. EHN-ADDY AND OTHERS.\r\n\r\n\r\n', '', '../links/cases/APOSTLES REVELATION.doc', 'Yes', 'FARKYE,  ANIM, HEWARD-MILLS', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ANIM&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ANIM, J.A.</a>  -   This is an appeal from the ruling of the High Court, Fast Track Division, presided over by <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ASAMOAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>Mr. Justice R. Asamoah</a> dated 5th February 2004.\r\n        On or about the 8th December 2003 the Plaintiff/Respondents hereinafter referred to as (“the Plaintiffs”) issued out a writ against the Defendants/Respondents hereinafter referred to as (“ the Defendants”). The indorsement on the write reads as follows:-\r\n         “The Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants jointly and severally:-\r\n', 'FARKYE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/303/2004', 'EBOW QUASHIE, CONSTANTINE KUDZEDZI', 'ANTHONY FORSON', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-07-08', ''),
(53, 'APOSTROPHES S.A. AND OTHERS vrs.COMMISSIONER OF CEPS,  C.E.P.S.                                     \r\n', '', '../links/cases/Aprostrophe SA.pdf', 'Yes', 'DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH, GBADEGBE', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DOTSE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>JONES DOTSE, J.S.C</a>  read the judgment of the court as follows:\r\nBy their  writ of summons the  Plaintiffs/Appellants hereinafter referred to as Plaintiffs  claimed against the  Defendants/Respondents hereinafter referred to as Defendants in the High Court Accra, Fast Track Division, the following  reliefs:-\r\ni.	$4,441,680.00 Four Million Four Hundred and Forty One Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty US) dollars being market value of the goods fraudulently converted by the Defendants Servants and or agents in the course of their duty.\r\n', 'JONES DOTSE, J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'H1/71/08', 'EBOW QUASHIE', 'EBOW PAITOO', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-07-24', ''),
(54, 'BMC GHANA LIMITED vrs. ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS BIBIANI LTD.\r\n', '', '../links/cases/ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS.pdf', 'Yes', 'TWUMASI, AMONOO-MONNEY, ANIN-YEBOAH', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=TWUMASI&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>TWUMASI, J.A.</a> -   This appeal from the ruling delivered by the High Court, Accra on the 19th  January 2004 sharply brings into focus the fundamental canons for the construction and interpretation of contracts entered into by businessmen, with particular reference to actual or presumed intentions of the parties.  Both parties are limited liability companies engaged in the mining industry.  By an agreement entered into by them on the 25th  July 1997, the appellants herein (defendants in the court below) engaged the ', 'TWUMASI, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/191/2004', 'KIZITO BEYUO', 'FIRNA ASAFU ADJAYE', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-10-29', ''),
(55, 'ISAAC K.B. ASIAMAH vrs. BRIGHT MORDO, H.T. ADJIRACKOR                                 \r\n', '', '../links/cases/ASIAMAH.pdf', 'Yes', 'ASARE KORANG, QUAYE, DUOSE', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=QUAYE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>QUAYE</a>:-  The facts herein are quite simple.  The pleadings and later, the evidence, show that on 23rd October 1993 at about 4.00 p.m., the plaintiff, as owner of a Sunbeam Taxi-cab with registration number AK 5843, was driving along the 37 Military Hospital/Kotobabi/Achimota highway from the direction of the 37 Military Hospital.    On reaching a spot at Dzorwulu, a Peugeot, 504 Saloon car with registration number GZA 4843 bumped into the rear of the Sunbeam taxi cab with such force that the taxi-cab ', 'ASARE KORANG, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/54/07', 'CLARENCE TAGOE', 'FRED KWASI AWUAH', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-04-03', ''),
(56, 'AUGUSTINA ODONKOR vrs.NII AKUSSI ASSINU II & ANOR.  ', '', '../links/cases/Augustina Odonkor vrs. Nii Akussi Assinu II & Anor.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARYEETEY, ANIM, MARFUL-SAU', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=MARFUL-SUA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>MARFUL-SAU J.A</A>.\r\nThis appeal is taken form the judgment of the Circuit Court, Accra dated the 15th day of April 2003.   The Plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the Respondent per her amended writ of summons, claimed the following against the Defendants, who are the Appellants herein: -\r\n1.	Declaration that all that piece or parcel of land situate lying and being at Lashibi known and marked as 116 A2 bounded on one side by a road measured 80 feet more or less bounded on one side by the land of Aunti Momo measuring 65 feet more or less, on another side by the land of the second Defendant measuring 80 feet more or less and on the side by second ', 'ARYEETEY, J. A.', 'Civil', ' ', 'HI/22/2006', 'O. K. IMBEAH', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-12-13', ''),
(57, 'AWUKU KONGLO  BOKOR, THOMAS KWAKU AMESIMEKU vrs.MANKRALO JAMES ASAFO ', '', '../links/cases/ASIAMAH.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARYEETEY, ANIM, APALOO', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>APALOO, J.A.</a>  -  This appeal emanates from the judgment of the High Court Ho, dated 15th November 1996.  The Court was presided by his Lordship <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ACQUAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>G.K. Acquah</a> then a Supreme Court Judge sitting as additional High Court Judge.\r\n          The trial judge entered judgment for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant for a declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of the Bokor land.  While dismissing 1st Defendant’s counter-claim the trial Judge refused Plaintiff’s reliefs for damages and perpetual injunction against the 1st Defendant.\r\n           The Plaintiff had sought by his writ the following reliefs.\r\n           (a)  A declaration that the Defendant was a mere tenant or alternatively a \r\n                 licensee of the Plaintiff in respect of the land in dispute.\r\n', 'ARYEETEY, J. A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/144/05', 'W.A.N. Bossman', 'Alfred Agbesi, Charles Hayibor', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-04-03', ''),
(58, 'NII PAUL AYITEY TETTEH etc  vrs. ARTHUR HAMMOND TETTEH etc                                                   ', '', '../links/cases/B.A. QUARCOO.pdf', 'Yes', 'ASARE KORANG, QUAYE, DUOSE', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DUOSE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DUOSE, J.A.</a> :-  This is an appeal from the decision of an Accra High Court in a consolidated suit dated 21/03/08 .  The judgment granted all the reliefs sought in the first \r\nsuit except the claim for general damages for personal injuries done to Paul Ayitey Tetteh\r\non the ground that “the action did not survive him personally, because of the “Plaintiff having died during the pendency of the suit, he is not entitled to general damages.”\r\nThe second suit issued by the Defendants to the original suit was dismissed and the counter claim therein was granted with costs of ¢20,000,000.00 against the Defendants in ', 'ASARE KORANG, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/25/2007', 'JAMES AHENKORAH', 'M.Y.N.  ACHIAMPONG', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-05-29', ''),
(60, 'B.H. INDUSTRIES LIMITED vrs. SHEIBU ADAMU, MADAM HAWA\r\n', '', '../links/cases/B.H.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, ABBAN, BAFFOE BONNIE', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKOTO=BAMFO,&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.</a> -    This is an appeal by the defendant/appellant hereafter referred to as the defendant against the ruling delivered by <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DZAKPASU, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>Dzakpasu J.</a> on the 12th of December 2005 refusing to set aside an order for the appointment of an auditor upon an earlier motion by the plaintiff/respondent who shall hereafter simply be known as the plaintiff.\r\n           On the 27th of October 2004, the plaintiffs, administrators of the estate of Alhaji\r\nAdamu commenced an action claiming against the defendant Co inter alia  \r\n          (1)  Declaration that the applicants are by law entitled to be registered\r\n                as the holders of the 40,400 shares in the name of the late Alhaji\r\n                Adamu.\r\n', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/22/2007', 'ADJEI LARTEY', 'S.K. AMOAH', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-01-19', ''),
(61, 'BEN YAW OBENG vrs.STATE HOUSING CO. LTD.\r\n', '', '../links/cases/Ben Yaw Obeng Vrs. State Housing Co. Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARYEETEY, MARFUL-SAU, OWUSU(MRS)', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=MARFUL-SAU&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>MARFUL-SAU, J. A.</a>: This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court Accra dated the 29th October 2004. The Plaintiff/Respondent in his writ commencing the action claimed the following reliefs:-\r\na)	An order for specific performance directed at the Defendant to deliver a House Type SH3 situated at Dansoman, Accra to the Plaintiff by reason of a contract dated 11th January 1979.\r\nb)	In the alternative the recovery of the purchase price for a similar house type at Dansoman, Accra at its current value.\r\nc)	Damages for breach of contract.\r\nd)	Cost.\r\n', 'ARYEETEY, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/148/06', 'MOHAMMED SHANEON', 'JOHN AIDOO', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-04-17', ''),
(62, 'BENJAMIN ANGMOR  vrs. AWISI DORKUNU & 2 ORS.', ' \r\n', '../links/cases/BENJAMIN ANGWOR.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, KANYOKE, APALOO', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=APALOO&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>APALOO, J.A.</a>  -   This appeal from the Circuit Court Odumase-Krobo had two main grounds to wit:-\r\n       “(1)   The learned trial judge erred in law when he gave judgment without\r\n                 giving the Defendant/Appellants and their witnesses the chance to\r\n                 state their case.\r\n         (2)    The case which had been pending in the circuit Court Akropong\r\n                  Akuapim for 3 years was transferred suddenly to Krobo Odumase\r\n                  Circuit Court without any reason given nor were the appellants notified\r\n                  of the transfer.”\r\n', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'CA. 57/2003', 'OWUSU YIANOMAN', 'R.B.K. ABOAGYE', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-04-22', ''),
(63, 'BENJAMIN ANOE QUARCOO vrs ANTWI, JESSIE’S BLOCK WORKS', '', '../links/cases/BENJAMIN ANOE.pdf', 'Yes', 'DOTSE, QUAYE, APALOO', '2008', 'appeal', 'By Court:-  On the 5th of June, 2008, this court whilst allowing the appeal against the Judgment of <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=FARKYE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>Farkye J.</a> dated 10th day of March 1998 convicted the Defendants/Respondents for contempt.\r\n	This court further ordered the 1st Defendant/Respondent who was  present in court to purge himself of the contempt and report back to the court today to enable the court ', 'DOTSE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'CA.137/99', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-06-13', ''),
(64, 'KWABENA ADJEI BOADI, YAW BOADI KWARTENG vrs. AKOSUA TEMA   ', '     \r\n', '../links/cases/BOADI.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU, BAFFOE BONNIE, DUOSE', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=OWUSU&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>OWUSU, J.A.</a> :-  This is an appeal against the Judgment of His Lordship <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=MENSAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>L.L. Mensah J.</a> delivered  on 6th day of December 2005 at the Fast Track High court, Sunyani.\r\n	By their writ of summons, the Plaintiffs/Appellants herein, hereafter referred to as Plaintiffs claimed against the Defendant/Respondent hereafter referred to as Respondent the following reliefs:\r\n		“1.  A Declaration that plaintiff’s hold a valid lease in \r\n                               respect of all that Plot No. 5 Block Q in the Sunyani-\r\n                               Fiapre South lay out situate at Sunyani in the Brong-Ahafo\r\n                               Region.\r\n', 'R.C. OWUSU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/221/2006', 'KWAME AGYEMAN', 'MR. OTU ESSEL', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-07-20', ''),
(65, 'OPANIN YAW NTOAH AND OTHERS vrs. NANA DWAMENA AKENTEN II AND OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/BOAHEN.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU, ANIM, ABBAN', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=OWUSU&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>OWUSU, J.A.</a>  -  This is an appeal against the ruling of His Lordship <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AMOAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>Frank Amoah J</a>. sitting at the High Court, Wenchi which ruling was delivered on the 4th day of May, 2005 in an Ex-parte application for review of an order of the Circuit Court, delivered by His Honour Owusu Gyamfi, sitting at Fiapre on 3rd May 2005.\r\n	Following an application brought before the Circuit Court under Section 22(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 Act 30, by Chief Superintendent of Police of ', 'OWUSU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/282/2005', 'OTU ESSEL', 'NANA OBIRI BOAHEN', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-03-01', ''),
(66, 'BOOMTRADE COMPANY vrs. MESSRS COTECNA & ANOR.', '', '../links/cases/BOOMTRADE CO. LTD.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARYEETEY, ABBAN, QUAYE', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=QUAYE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>QUAYE, J.A.</a>  -    The respondents herein, in their role as plaintiffs in the trial court, on 9th November 1999, filed a writ of summons, indorsed with reliefs against the defendants jointly and severally, for\r\n(a)  the sum of US$ 22.092.00 being the cost of one 20 foot container of canned \r\n      tomato paste purchased by the plaintiff company from the 2nd defendant which\r\n      was found on delivery to be unfit for consumption.\r\n', 'ARYEETEY, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/146/05', 'K.K. SEY', 'DABI', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-03-24', ''),
(67, 'MATHEW ALEXANDER KWAKYE, DR. ADJEI MARFU  vrs.  MICHAEL KWAME OFORI,  BUGRI NAABU GROUP OF COMPANIES.\r\n', '', '../links/cases/BUGRI NAABU.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARYEETEY, KANYOKE, APALOO', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=KANYOKE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>KANYOKE, J.A.</a>  :-    This appeal has emanated from the judgment of the High Court, Accra (Coram:  Mr. Justice <a href="findrulings.php?searchval=FARKYE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>S.T. Farkye</a>, Justice of Appeal (as he then was) sitting as an additional High Court Judge, wherein the Court dismissed the plaintiff/appellant’s (hereinafter the plaintiff) action and entered judgment for the 2nd defendant/respondent (hereinafter called the 2nd defendant) upon its counterclaim; ineffect declaring title in House No. 171, Airport West Residential Area, Accra in the 2nd defendant.  The said ', 'ARYEETEY, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/84/2006', 'MINKA PREMO', 'KWEKU PAINTSIL', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-11-27', ''),
(68, 'INTERWORLD PRODUCTS  [GH] LTD.  vrs. LAVA LIMITED                                                   \r\n', '', '../links/cases/CA-34-2003.pdf', 'Yes', 'TWUMASI, OMARI SASU, OSEI', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=TWUMASI&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge> TWUMASI, J.A.</a> :   The central issue in this appeal as indeed it was rightly found by the learned trial Judge, is whether the respondent [defendant at the court below] is passing off its electric fans as those of the appellant, plaintiff in the said court, by similarity of the get-up of the disputed fans.\r\n	The plaintiff’s case was that it had for a considerable length of time been selling a type of electric fan with the name “Binatone” but that quite recently the respondent has been dealing in a fan named “MIKACHI”  but the get-up is similar to the appellant’s fan.  ', 'TWUMASI, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'CA. 34-2003', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-02-16', ''),
(69, 'FRANK AYITEY vrs. JULIANA QUAYE             \r\n', '', '../links/cases/CA 95.2002  FRANK AYITEY.pdf', 'Yes', 'ESSILFIE BONDZIE,  OWUSU-ANSAH, OSEI', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ASARE KORANG&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ASARE KORANG, J.A.</a>  -\r\nThe Plaintiff\\Respondent (hereafter designated as the Plaintiff) as customary successor and head of family of the matrilineal family of the late Stephen Yaw Nimo sued the Defendant/Appellant (hereafter called the Defendant), the widow of the late Stephen Yaw Nimo (Yaw Nimo  for short hereafter) for inter alia a Declaration that House No. ZE. 172, Zongo Extension, Kumasi is the property of the immediate matrilineal family of Yaw Nimo and that the purported gift inter vivos of the said house by Yaw Nimo to the defendant was null and void and of no effect whatsoever.\r\n', 'ESSILFIE BONDZIE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'CA.95\\2002', 'P.F.N.A  NEEQUAYE', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-01-16', ''),
(70, 'ESSMMC SHIPPING CO. LTD. vrs. CUSTOMS EXCISE & PREVENTIVE SERVICE \r\n', '', '../links/cases/CA 99.pdf', 'Yes', 'GBADEGBE, PIESARE, QUAYE', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=GBADEGBE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>GBADEGBE, J.A.</a>:  read the following judgment of the Court.\r\n\r\n       In this appeal which arises from the decision of the High Court, Accra upholding the claim of the respondent the questions which the court has to decide turn on the liability of the appellant regarding the seizure and or confiscation of the respondent’s fish, the award of damages and the order that the respondent pays custom duties on the fish the subject matter of the action herein. In the court below, the learned trial judge accepted the respondent’s case that that the conduct of the appellant in ordering the seizure of the fish and subsequently dealing with it in a manner inconsistent ', 'GBADEGBE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'CA 99/2002', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-04-23', ''),
(156, 'ANTHONY KWABENA ANYAN vrs. THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA\r\n', '', '../links/cases/ANTHONY KWABENA ANYAN.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU (MS), J.S.C.', '2008', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=OWUSU&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>OWUSU (MS), J.S.C:</a>This is an application to invoke the supervisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 132 of the constitution, which reads as follows: “The supreme court shall have supervisory Jurisdiction over all courts and over any adjudicating authority and may in the exercise of that supervisory Jurisdiction, issue orders and directions for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of its supervisory power.”\r\n', 'AKUFFO (MS), J.S.C', 'Criminal', '', 'CM J5/37/2008', 'KWAKU BAAH', 'BENARD AHIAVOR', 'Supreme Court', '2008-12-10', ''),
(157, 'ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOR. vrs.\r\nAPAADE LODGE LIMITED\r\n', '', '../links/cases/ATTORNEY GENERALANOR.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKUFFO (MS), DATE-BAH, ADINYIRA (MRS), OWUSU (MS), DOTSE', '2008', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ADINYIRA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ADINYIRA (MRS), J.S.C:</a>The facts briefly are that on 3 March 2006, the Plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter respondent) commenced an action at the High Court Accra against the Attorney General as 1st defendant and the Ghana Football Association as the 2nd defendant (hereinafter applicant) jointly and severally, for the recovery of the sum of ¢422, 148,026 with interest being debt owed in respect of hotel and restaurant services provided by the plaintiff to the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and the applicant. ', 'AKUFFO (MS), J.S.C', 'Criminal', '', 'CM J8/44/2008', 'THADDEUS SORY', 'MOHAMMED SAHNOON', 'Supreme Court', '2008-12-10', ''),
(82, 'GRACE AYELEY WELBECK vrs.GRACE OKAIKAI OKAI ', '', '../links/cases/GRACE AYELEY WELBECK.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU, PIESARE, ANIN YEBOAH', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=PIESARE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>PIESARE, J.A.</a>  -  This is an appeal filed by the defendant/appellant against the decision of the High Court dated 3rd May, 2002, delivered by Mrs. Vida Akoto Bamfo (J), as she then was, against the defendant/appellant herein.\r\n            Three grounds of Appeal were filed, and argued together.  No further grounds were filed.  The three grounds of appeal are:\r\n                        (1)   The judgment is against the weight of evidence.\r\n                        (2)   The learned trial judge failed to give adequate consideration\r\n                                 to the case of the Defendant/Appellant.\r\n                      (3)     The learned trial judge erred in law in setting aside the\r\n                                sale of the property the subject matter of the suit to the\r\n', 'OWUSU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'HI/222/2004', 'Dick Anyadi', 'Clearance Tagoe', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-02-11', ''),
(98, 'ZAINABU ALI @ ABU & 1 OR. vrs. HAJIA HADIZA & 4 ORS.  ', '', '../links/cases/ZAINABU ALI.pdf', 'Yes', 'FARKYE, AKAMBA, APALOO', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKAMBA, J.A.</a> -  This is an interlocutory appeal from the ruling of Gyaesayor J,  delivered on 5th November 2003 at the High Court Ho.  The appellant assails the court’s ruling on five grounds namely:\r\n(i)	The learned judge’s refusal to order a full inventory of the deceased’s estate \r\ncontrary to law and the rules of procedure.\r\n(ii)	The learned judge erred in ruling that an order for inventory of all property in\r\ndispute had been made when in fact no such order had been made.\r\n(iii)	The learned judge failed to exercise his discretion judiciously by refusing to \r\nrestrain the defendants from dealing with the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit.\r\n(iv)	The learned trial judge erred in law by failing to order the defendants as\r\nAdministrators to render accounts to the plaintiffs.\r\n(v)	The learned trial judge’s refusal to order the defendants to produce all documents \r\nOf title on the six (6) houses and the four (4)  vehicles of the deceased was contrary to the rules of procedure.\r\n', 'FARKYE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/204/2004', 'MOHAMMED SAHNOON', 'ERNEST GAEWU', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-12-10', ''),
(84, 'YAKUBU BRAIMAH, JIBRIEL BRAIMAH vrs. SHELL [GH] LTD.AND 7 OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/YAKUBU BRAIMAH.pdf', 'Yes', 'ASARE KORANG,  KANYOKE, MARFUL-SAU', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ASARE KORANG&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ASARE KORANG, J.A.</a>  -  Section 10(1) & (2) of the Limitation Decree 1972 (NRCD 54) states:\r\n		“(1)  A person shall not bring an action to recover a land after the \r\n 		         expiration of twelve years from which the right of action \r\n		        accrued to the person bringing it or, if it first accrued to a\r\n		        person through whom the first mentioned claims to that person.\r\n		(2)   A right of action to recover land does not accrue unless the land\r\n                               is in the possession of a person in whose favour the period of 		\r\n                               limitation can run.”\r\n	It is also provided in Section 22 (1) & (2) of the said Decree as follows:\r\n', 'ASARE KORANG, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/16/2007', 'J.O. AMUI FOR', 'TANKO AMADU', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-06-08', ''),
(85, 'WOEDEM KUNUTSOR  vrs. ADJIN TETTEH & ORS.', '', '../links/cases/WIEDEM KUNUTSOR.pdf', 'Yes', 'DOTSE, QUAYE, APALOO', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=APALOO&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>APALOO, J.A</a>.:-   This is an appeal from the decision of the Fast Track Division of the High Court in Accra dated 2nd February 2006.  The decision was a ruling which restrained the Defendants/Appellants whether by themselves, agents, servants, assigns and privies from going on to the disputed land to demarcate, dig, construct, weed, harvest or fell any tree on the land until the action is finally determined by the court.\r\n', 'DOTSE, J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'H1/160/06', 'AGYABENG AKRASI', 'SOMUAH ASAMOAH', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-08-12', ''),
(86, 'WILLIAM G.K. THOMPSON vrs. TOTAL GHANA LIMITED  ', '', '../links/cases/TOTAL [GH] LTD.pdf', 'Yes', 'QUAYE, APALOO, GYAESAYOR', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=QUAYE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>QUAYE, J.A.</a>:-  The plaintiff/respondent herein claimed in his evidence in the trial court that he was employed by, and remained in the service of the defendants/appellants for sixteen years.  This allegation of fact did not raise an issue in the eyes of the appellants.  No issue was therefore joined on this allegation.  It stands out however that neither in his writ of summons, the statement of claim, nor in his evidence before the court below, did the respondent give any indication as to when exactly his relationship with the appellants\r\nas employee started.\r\n', 'QUAYE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/124/2008', 'PEASAH BOADU', 'HAYIBOR DJABENG', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-07-31', ''),
(87, 'DAVID TORKORNOO vrs. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, GEORGE YAO BOTCHWAY', '', '../links/cases/TORKONNO.pdf', 'Yes', 'ABBAN (MRS), KANYOKE, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=KANYOKE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>KANYOKE, J.A.</a>:-  This is an appeal by the 2nd defendant/appellant [hereinafter referred to as the appellant] against the judgment of the High Court, Tema dated the 31st day of July 2002, in which it was adjudged inter alia that one Madam Teresia Tamakloe is the owner of Plot No F. 50 Tema.  The appellant being aggrieved by that judgment filed an appeal against the said judgment on the 1st day of October 2002 on seven grounds of appeal.  ', 'ABBAN (MRS), J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/119/06', 'D.K. AMELEY', 'KWABENA NYANOR', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-03-20', ''),
(89, 'THOMAS KWAKU MARFO, YAA POKUA vrs. KWAME ANTWI A. BOATENG, PATRICIA NYANKOMANGO', '', '../links/cases/THOMAS K. MARFO.pdf', 'Yes', 'GBADEGBE, PIESARE, DUOSE', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=GBADEGBE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>GBADEGBE, J.A.</a>:-  This is an appeal from the decision of an Accra Circuit Court that allowed in favour of the respondents herein their claims in respect of the disputed property situate at La-Bone in Accra.  In his judgment, the learned trial judge accepted the case of the respondents that the disputed property belongs to the maternal family of the deceased Opanyin Kutu Acheampong as well as ancillary reliefs  Following the said judgment; the appellants initiated a process by way of judicial correction before us in these proceedings.  ', 'GBADEGBE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/222/2005', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-04-14', ''),
(90, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. NANA KWASI ADU, NANA KOFI ASUSEI, NANA OPPONG ASAMOAH ', '', '../links/cases/The Republic Vrs. Nana Kwasi Adu & Two Ors.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARYEETEY, MARFUL-SAU, MARIAMA OWUSU', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ARYEETEY&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ARYEETEY, J.A.</a>: This is an appeal against the ruling of the Kumasi High Court in a motion for an order of Attachment and/or committal for contempt in the court below against the respondents “for their various acts and conducts with respect to Nkekyerekyi lands especially the 1st Respondent’s act of allocating parcels of Nkekyerekyi lands to prospective developers as buildings plots and the 2nd Respondent’s act of reporting the applicant herein to the Striking Force Unit of the Ghana Police Service for criminal trespass in respect of Nterkyerekyi lands and the 3rd Respondent’s act of removing demarcation pillars on the said land which said diverse acts are calculated to bring the authority and administration of the law into [disrepute] or disregarded in the light of the ', 'ARYEETEY, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/225/07', 'ADUMUA-BOSSMAN', 'MICHAEL OWUSU', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-04-17', ''),
(91, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE ANLO TRADITIONAL COUNCIL\r\n', '', '../links/cases/The Republic v. Anlo Traditional Council.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADINYIRA (MRS), AKAMBA, DOTSE', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKAMBA, J.A.</a>: -On 18th May 2001 the High Court, Denu, presided over by E.M.Boateng, J. granted an application filed by the Applicant/Respondent herein Togbi Gbordzor III, (hereinafter referred to simply as the Respondent) prohibiting the judicial committee of the Anlo Traditional Council from proceeding to hear and determine an interlocutory application for injunction against the aforementioned respondent pending before it.\r\n\r\nThe facts leading to the ruling of the High Court briefly are that the Appellants herein as Interested Parties filed a petition, on 18th October 1996 before the Judicial Committee of the Traditional Council Anloga against three Defendants/Respondents namely Micheal Dorlefiame Anthonio, Annie Tsikata and C.Y Tetteh, seeking the following reliefs namely:\r\n', 'ADINYIRA (MRS), J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/180/2004', 'Doe Tsikata', 'Wisdom Anthonio', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-11-25', ''),
(92, 'STARCOM BROADCASTING SERVICES vrs.LA CHAUMIERE RESTAURANT AND NANA AMA SERWAA GYASI, OYOKO CONTRACTORS', '', '../links/cases/Starcom B Services v. Nana Ama s. Gyasi.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARYEETEY,  KANYOKE, BROWN', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=KANYOKE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>KANYOKE  J.A.</a>:  The facts of this case are as follows:  The plaintiffs/Respondents (herein after referred to as the Respondents) extended a short term credit facility to a company named Messers Allied Trades and Finance(ATF) which was secured by an Agreement of the property known as plot No. 64A Airport Residential Area, Accra, owned by the 2nd co-defendant/Appellant.  A.T.F defaulted on the loan and the Respondents attempted to realize the collateral whereupon the co-defendants/Appellants (herein thereafter referred to as the appellants). ', 'ARYEETEY, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/238/04', 'KWESI AFRIFA', 'MUERELL LOGAN', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-03-09', ''),
(93, 'SHEIK AHMED RUFAI YAHAYA & 8 ORS vrs. SUMMA HOLDING CORPORATION & 8 ORS.	', '', '../links/cases/SHEIK AHMED RUFAI YAHAYA & 8 ORS.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, TWENEBOA-KODUA, ANIN YEBOAH', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ANIN YEBOAH&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ANIN YEBOAH, J.A.:</a>-     On the 7/7/2003 the plaintiffs/respondents [referred to in this judgment as the respondents] obtained leave from the High Court, Accra, [Fast Track Division] to issue a writ of summons and statement of claim and serve same out of jurisdiction.  The leave was granted by Dordzie, J on the said date and on 10/7/03 the respondents filed the writ of summons together with the statement of claim.  In appears the first to fifth respondents are individual whereas the sixth to the ninth respondents are corporate bodies.  The action was against the eight defendants and out of the eight only the first defendant was a corporate body.\r\n', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/48/2005', 'G.A. Eshun', 'Agyabeng Akrasi', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-07-15', ''),
(94, 'SABINA ANDAM & ANOR. vrs. DANIEL LIGHT AMOAH & ANOR.', '', '../links/cases/Sabina Andam & anor. Vrs. Daniel Light Amoah & anor.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU, MARFUL-SAU, YAW APPAU', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=MARFUL-SAU&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>MARFUL-SAU J.A.</a> : This appeal is against the judgment of the Accra Circuit Court dated the 19th July 2005.  The Plaintiffs/Respondents issued a writ of summons against the Defendants/Appellants for the following reliefs. \r\ni.	Recovery of possession of the piece of parcel of land with building thereon situate at Kwashieman, Accra comprised in the lease dated 15th day of June 1990 between the Ahiaku family and the 2nd Plaintiff.\r\nii.	Declaration of title to the land described in (i) above.\r\niii.	Perpetual injunction against the 1st and 2nd Defendants.\r\niv.	Cost. \r\n\r\nThe brief facts of the case are that the 1st and 2nd Defendants were tenants in a four-room building at Kwashieman, Accra.  ', 'OWUSU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'HI/192/ 07', 'FRED AWUAH', 'F.A. ACQUAYE', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-03-13', ''),
(95, 'RICHARD AWUKU SEDDOH vrs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK', '', '../links/cases/Richard Awuku Seddoh vs Standard Chartered Bank No 2.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, ANIM, KUSI APPIAH', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKAMBA, J.A.</a>:  In this appeal, the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred as plaintiff) was until 1992 an employee of the defendant/respondent bank (hereinafter simply referred as the defendant) wherein he held the position of Supervisor in the Customer Services section of the foreign department. In or about 1992 an internal fraud was uncovered in the aforesaid foreign department of the defendant involving the secret siphoning of the bank’s money into two foreign currency accounts known as the Ishmael Lamptey account and the Paul Davies account. Following ', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/302/2005', 'Dick K Anyadi', 'Joseph Akyeampong', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-02-07', ''),
(96, 'RAGNOUGA QUIDRAOGO vrs. MADAM AYISHATU, MORO KAMPAORE   ', '', '../links/cases/RAGNOUGA QUIDRAOGO.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU, ASARE KORANG, KANYOKE', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=OWUSU&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>OWUSU, J.A.</a>  -  By his writ of summons, the plaintiff per his lawful Attorney claimed the following reliefs against the Defendant –\r\n(a)	“Recovery of possession of H/No. C. 153/13, Mamobi, Accra.”\r\n(b)	“Recovery of possession of H/No. J. 3837/7, Nungua Zongo, Accra.”\r\n(c)	“Account for all the rent collected in respect of the two (2) houses up\r\nto date.”\r\n      (d)  “Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, her agents, assigns, privies,\r\n             workmen, etc. from peaceful enjoyment and administration of the Estate\r\n             \r\n             of his late uncle Mahama Quidrago alias Mohammadu Moshie.”\r\n	\r\n Upon an application for joinder on behalf of Moro Kampaore, he was later joined as Co-defendant to the suit.', 'OWUSU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/19/2006', 'TIMOTHY DZANSI', 'JOSEPH TURKSON', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-12-15', ''),
(97, 'DANIEL SACKEY QUARCOOPOME vrs. SANYO ELECTRIC TRADING CO. LTD, GHANA SANYO COMPANY LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/QUARCOOPOME.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, KANYOKE, MARFUL-SAU', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=KANYOKE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>KANYOKE, J.A.</a>  -  I have had the opportunity to read earlier on the lead judgment of my brother Marful Sau J.A.   I agree with the conclusion reached by him that the appeal should and is accordingly allowed.  The learned trial judge clearly went wrong in law in granting the alternative relief for “adequate remuneration and compensation for services ', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/77/06', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-03-01', ''),
(101, 'NANA KWABENA FOSU,  JOHN OWUSU vrs. ABENA ADOMAH,  EUNICE OSEI @ AKOSUA', '', '../links/cases/NANA KWABENA FOSU.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU, GBADEGBE, APPAU', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>GBADEGBE, J.A.</a>:-   In this appeal that arises from the determination of an administration action by the High Court, Kumasi resulting in the grant of probate to the Executors-Respondents herein, the issues for our determination turns on whether the last Will of the deceased testator, Osei Kweku alias Montana dated 29 April 1994 was his own act.  At the trial in the court below, the appellants herein challenged the will on several grounds.  The first such ground was that the decedent lacked the mental capacity to make the testamentary document and accordingly it was contended that it was a forgery.  ', 'R.C. OWUSU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/281/2004', 'CHARLES AGBANY', 'PAAPA DADSON', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-05-15', ''),
(102, 'NANA KOFI ANKRAH, OPANYIN KOFI ANSAH vrs. MOSES BAIDOO', '', '../links/cases/NANAKANKRAH.pdf', 'Yes', 'ABBAN (MRS), APPAU, OFOE', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ABBAN (MRS)&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ABBAN (MRS) J.A.</a>:-  This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Sekondi dated the 10th day of June 2007.  The judgment went against the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) and being dissatisfied he has appealed against same to this court.\r\n	The facts of this case are that on the 17th August 2004, the Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents) issued a writ of summons against the Appellant in which they claimed the following (3) three reliefs:\r\n            i.  Account of monies had and received in respect of House No. 23-24/5 \r\n                Collins, Avenue, Takoradi by way of rent since the year 2001.\r\n          ii.   Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, assigns\r\n                and persons claiming through him from dealing with House No.\r\n                23-24/5 Collins Avenue, Takoradi in a manner inconsistent with the\r\n                Corporate interest of the Sekyi Akona Obratu Ebiradze Family.\r\n', 'ABBAN (MRS), J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/19/2008', 'KWAKU SAM AMOAH', 'EBOW QUASHIE', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-06-05', ''),
(103, 'NANA EKUA KOFUA vrs. CHRISTOPHER BROOKMAN, LILIAN ATOWOROH', '', '../links/cases/NANA EKUA KOFUA APPEAL JUDGMENT.pdf', 'Yes', 'ABBAN (MRS), APPAU, DUOSE', '2007', 'appeal', 'For the purposes of this appeal, the appellant who was the plaintiff in the court below would be referred to simply as the plaintiff while the respondents who were the defendants in the case would also be referred to as the defendants.\r\n\r\nThe facts leading to this appeal as disclosed in the record of appeal are that one Yaw Budukuma died testate. This Yaw Budukuma was married to one Tsetsewa and they had three children, namely; Aba Amoakowaa @ Cecilia Brookman, Kwabena Bosu @ Lawyer Ewusie Brookman and Mary Brookman. Mary Brookman, however pre-deceased her father. \r\n', 'ABBAN (MRS), J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/188/07', 'DENNIS ADJEI', 'PAAPA DADSON', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-01-17', ''),
(104, 'NAANA KITTOE vrs. DONALD W. LEWIS  ', '', '../links/cases/NAANA KITTOE.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU-ANSAH, DOTSE, APALOO', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DOTSE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DOTSE, J.A.</a>  -  This appeal admits of no complexities whatsoever.  The Plaintiff/Appellant , hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff and the Defendant/Respondent, hereafter referred to as the Defendant who are both resident in the U.S. married under the Ordinance on 21st August, 1999.\r\n	During the subsistence of the marriage the parties acquired a plot of land in their joint names and built a house on it.\r\n	The Plaintiff considering her position as a wife to the Defendant and interest and title to the said property threatened by the conduct of the Defendant initiated action in the High Court, Accra claiming the following reliefs:\r\n', 'OWUSU-ANSAH', 'Civil', '', 'H1/114/05', 'Y. KULENDI', 'OSEI NYAME', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-12-15', ''),
(105, 'GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK vrs. DAKMAK RASHWAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRY AND 7 OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/morgan.pdf', 'Yes', 'QUAYE, MARIAMA OWUSU, DUOSE', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=QUAYE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>QUAYE, J.A.</a>:-  In the cause that is still pending final determination in the trial High Court (Fast Track) the plaintiff/respondents, who are a corporate body, established under the laws of Ghana to engage in the banking business, commenced the action by writ of summons on 5th April 2005, for the recovery of ¢18,033.477,450.14 which they alleged was the outstanding unpaid amount including interest on a 120 days deferred letter of credit facility of US$1,000,000.00 they granted the 1st Defendant/appellant on 27th February 1998.  The facility was valid for 24 months, with a condition for review at six months intervals.  ', 'QUAYE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/155/2007', 'C. Tetteh', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-10-26', ''),
(106, 'MASH AGBESHIE & ANOR. vrs. AMINA AMORKOR, FOFO RUKYEA LARYEA', '', '../links/cases/MASH AGBESHIE.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU, TWENEBOA-KODUA, ANIM', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=TWENEBOA-KODUA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>TWENEBOA-KODUA, J.A.</a>  - This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Accra dated 27 February 2004.  The judgment granted all the reliefs the Plaintiffs/Respondents sought as follows:-\r\n              “(a)   A declaration of title to the property Or House No. 49E/12,  \r\n                       Nima, Accra.\r\n(b)	Recovery of possession of the said House No. 49E/12, Nima, Accra.\r\n(c)	Account for rent collected on the said house.\r\n(d)	Damages.\r\n', 'OWUSU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'HI/51/2004', 'Thomas Hughes', 'Gabriel Puamang', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-04-21', ''),
(108, 'ABDUL SAMED SEIDU vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/ABDUL SOMED SEIDU.pdf', 'Yes', 'KUSI-APPIAH, GYAESAYOR, AYEBI', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=KUSI-APPIAH&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>KUSI-APPIAH, J.A.</a>: This appeal is from the decision of the High Court, Tamale, given on 11th July, 2007 per DOEGAH J. by which the Learned Judge refused and dismissed an application for bail by the applicant ,now	 the appellant herein. Dissatisfied with the said ruling the appellant has appealed to this court on the following grounds:\r\n\r\n(1)	That the ruling was unreasonable having regard to the circumstances.\r\n\r\n(2)	That the trial Judge exercised his discretion improperly and wrongfully.\r\n\r\n(3)	That the continued detention of the appellant contravenes Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.\r\n\r\nBefore I discuss these grounds of appeal, I would give a brief background information of this case. The facts of the appellant’s case may be gathered from the affidavit in support of his application for bail at the High Court containing the following relevant averments:\r\n', 'KUSI-APPIAH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'H2/8/2008', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-07-24', ''),
(109, 'DANIEL KWASI ABODAKPI vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/ABODAKPI VS THE REP.pdf', 'Yes', 'KANYOKE, APPAU, ACQUAYE', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=KANYOKE&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>KANYOKE J.A.</a>; The appellant herein, a former minister of Trade and Industry ,together with Victor Selormey(deceased),also a former Deputy minister of Finance, were arraigned before the Fast Track High Court, Accra presided over by His Lordship S.T Farkye, an Appeal Court Judge (now retired)sitting as an additional High court Judge, on seven counts with the following offences;(1)two counts of conspiracy to commit crime, namely willfully causing financial loss to the state contrary to sections 23(1)and 179A(3) (a)of the Criminal offences Act, 1960(Act 29),(2) two counts of Willfully causing financial loss to the state contrary to section 179A(3) (a) of the criminal offences Act,1960(Act29),(3)One count of conspiracy to commit crime, namely Defrauding ', 'KANYOKE, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'H2/6/07', 'TONY LITHUR', 'VALERIE  AMATE', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-06-20', ''),
(110, 'ASTU CHARAN KOLE vrs. THE REPUBLIC	', '', '../links/cases/ASTU CHARAN KOLE V REP.pdf', 'Yes', 'KANYOKE, APPAU, ACQUAYE', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=APPAU&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>YAW APPAU, J.A.</a>\r\nThe appellant in this appeal Astu Charan Kole, was arraigned for trial before the High Court, Sekondi on two counts of falsification of accounts and stealing contrary to sections 140 and 124 (1) of Act 29/60. The prosecution called eight (8) witnesses in support of the charges against the appellant and closed its case on 27/08/2007. The trial court, at the close of the prosecution’s case, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the appellant so he had a case to answer, thereby calling on him to open ', 'KANYOKE, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'H2/5/2008', 'KOFI DIABA', 'STELLA BADU', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-06-05', ''),
(111, 'DANIEL ABODAKPI vrs. THE REPUBLIC ', '                                                                   \r\n                                    …. 	\r\n ', '../links/cases/DANIEL ABODAKPI V. REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARYEETEY,  MARFUL-SAU, MARIAMA OWUSU', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ARYEETEY&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ARYEETEY, J.A.</a> \r\nOn the 5th of February 2007, the applicant was convicted by the Fast Track High Court and sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years imprisonment in respect of various counts of Conspiracy to commit crime namely Causing Financial loss to the state, contrary to Section 23(1) and Section 179A(3)(a) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), Wilfully Causing Financial Loss to the State, contrary to Section 179A(3)(a) of the Criminal Code, Conspiracy to commit crime namely; Defrauding by False Pretences contrary to Section 23(1) and section 131 of Criminal Code and Defrauding by False Pretences contrary to Section 131 of the Criminal Code. ', 'ARYEETEY, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'H3/17/2007', 'Gertrude Aikins', 'Tony Lithur', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-11-01', ''),
(112, 'KOFI DADIE vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/KofiDadieRep.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADINYIRA (MRS), ASIAMAH, PIESARE', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ADINYIRA&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>SOPHIA ADINYIRA (Mrs.) JSC</a>: \r\nThe main issue for consideration in this case is the principle of inconsistency in the result of a trial by jury of two or more persons tried on the same charge and the same evidence adduced at the trial. The appellant herein Kofi Dadie was on the 31 July 2002 convicted by a Kumasi High Court for the murder of Samuel Tuffuor alias Kofi Sammy and sentenced to death. He was originally charged with three others, 1st, 3rd and 4th accused (hereinafter described as A1, A3, and A4 where necessary)) with the offences of:\r\n', 'ADINYIRA (MRS), J.S.C.', 'Criminal', '', 'H2/9/2004', 'E. K. MENSAH', 'STELLA BADU', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-02-07', ''),
(113, 'KWASI ALHASSAN	vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/KWASI ALHASSAN V THE REP.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS), ABBAN (MRS), APALOO', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ABBAN (MRS)&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ABBAN (MRS) J.A.</a>: This appeal emanates from a judgment of the High Court Sekondi, dated 16th March 1993.\r\n\r\nThe appellant who was arraigned before the said High court, charged with the offence of murder, was found guilty and sentenced to death.\r\n\r\nHe appealed against his conviction and sentence and filed four grounds of appeal namely.\r\n\r\n(1)	The conviction for murder is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial.\r\n', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'NO. 21/ 94', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-10-27', ''),
(115, 'NANA S. K. GRAY @ ADOBOR vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/NANA S.K. GRAY V THE REP.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU(MS), APALOO, BAFFOE BONNIE', '2007', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=OWUSU&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>OWUSU, J.A.</a>: The Appellant herein was arraigned before the Circuit Court, Tema on one count of Defrauding  by false pretence contrary to  section 131 of the Criminal Code of 1960 (Act 29).\r\n\r\nHe pleaded guilty with explanation. After he has offered his explanation, the court proceeded to sentence him holding that:\r\n“The explanation of the accused does not disclose a defence. The explanation is a Judicial Confession of guilt and it shows the accused has committed the offence charged. His plea shall remain as GUILTY.”\r\n', 'R.C. OWUSU, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'H2/12/ 07', 'CYNTHIA LAMPTEY', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-12-20', '');

INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(186, 'IN RE LARBI (DECD.); LARBI AND ANOTHER v. LARBI [1977] 2 GLR 506-512, Court of Appeal', '', 'link/cases/IN RE LARBI (DECD.) LARBI AND ANOTHER v. LARBI.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARCHER, ANIN, ANNAN', '1977', 'appeal', 'ARCHER J.A.\r\nThe father of the late Ansah Obuadabang Larbi was an Akwapim man from Larteh where succession is patrilineal. The present appellant is the mother of the deceased and she is a Fante from Saltpond where succession is matrilineal. The late Larbi before his death was married under the Marriage Ordinance, Cap. 127 (1951 Rev.), and was survived by his widow and one issue and as such by virtue of the provisions of section 48 of the Marriage Ordinance, Cap. 127 (1951 Rev.), two-thirds of his estate would devolve on his widow and issue and one-third to his family according to customary law. ', 'ARCHER, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 506-512', 'E. D. Kom', 'E. N. Olaga', 'Court of Appeal', '1977-07-04', ''),
(187, 'IN RE ASANTE (DECD.); ASANTE AND ANOTHER v. OWUSU [1992] 1 GLR 119–129, Court of Appeal', '', '../links/cases/IN RE ASANTE (DECD.) ASANTE AND ANOTHER v. OWUSU.pdf', 'Yes', 'ESSIEM, ADJABENG, FORSTER', '1992', 'appeal', 'ESSIEM  J.A.\r\nThe late Major (Rtd.) Kwame Asante died leaving a widow whom he had married under the Marriage Ordinance, Cap. 127 (1951 Rev.).  As it is well known the said Ordinance governs monogamous marriages.\r\nIt appears from the evidence that the late Major (Rtd.) Asante did not observe the strict monogamous nature of the type of marriage he engaged in because he had issues with other women.  One of such women is the respondent in this appeal.', 'ESSIEM, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 119–129', 'Sam Okudzeto', 'D. O. Lamptey', 'Court of Appeal', '1992-04-02', ''),
(188, 'ANSAH AND ANOTHER v. JOE  AND ANOTHER [1961] GLR 395-401, Supreme Court', '', '../links/cases/ANSAH AND ANOTHER v. JOE.pdf', 'Yes', 'KORSAH, SARKODEE-ADDO, AKIWUMI', '1961', 'supreme', 'SARKODEE-ADOO  J.S.C.\r\nHe delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Land Court, Sekondi, dated the 20th May, 1960, with respect to leasehold premises known as plot No. 42, John Sarbah Road, in the African Township of Takoradi, bequeathed to the second plaintiff by the late John Essel Ansah who died on the 26th April, 1946, in his last will and testament bearing date the 3rd March, 1946, and deposited in the High Court, Sekondi on the 16th April, 1946.', 'KORSAH, C.J.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 395-401', 'E. Akufo-Addo', 'S. Baidoo', 'Supreme Court', '1961-06-26', ''),
(189, 'ASOR II AND OTHERS v. AMEGBOE AND OTHERS [1978] GLR 153-169, Court of Appeal', '', '../links/cases/ASOR II AND OTHERS v. AMEGBOE.pdf', 'Yes', 'AZU CRABBE, SOWAH, ANIN, FRANCOIS, ABBAN', '1978', 'appeal', 'AZU CRABBE C.J.\r\nThis is an appeal from the decision of the judicial committee of the National House of Chiefs dated 27 July 1976, affirming a ruling by the judicial committee of the Regional House of Chiefs, Volta Region, by which the appellants'' plea of estoppel per rem judicatam was overruled in limine.\r\nThe facts of this case are simple and may be briefly stated.  On 11 January 1958, the Govenor-General of Ghana, acting under section 8 (1) of the State Councils (Southern Ghana and Southern Togoland) Ordinance,', 'AZU CRABBE, C.J.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 153-169', 'E. D. Kom', 'B. J. da Rocha', 'Court of Appeal', '1977-06-14', ''),
(190, 'IN RE YENDI SKIN AFFAIRS; YAKUBU II v. ABUDULAI [1984-86] 2 GLR 231-238, Court of Appeal', '', 'link/cases/IN RE YENDI SKIN AFFAIRS YAKUBU II v. ABUDULAI.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADADE, FRANCOIS, OSEI-HWERE, AMUA-SEKYI, AMPIAH', '1986', 'appeal', ' Adade J.S.C. delivered the ruling of the court.  Civil motion No. 9/85 is an application by Na Yakubu II, the appellant herein, for an order that execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (see In re Yendi Skin Affairs; Abudulai v. Yakubu II [1984-86] 2 G.L.R. 189, C.A.) be stayed pending appeal.  It is brought under rule 20 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13).  Civil Motion No. 13/86 is an application by Mahamadu Abudulai, the respondent in the appeal, asking this court to restrain, by injunction, Na Yakubu II, the appellant:\r\n', 'ADADE, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 231-238', 'Nana Otoamfom Bekoe', 'E. O.  Appiah', 'Court of Appeal', '1986-07-16', ''),
(191, 'QUAYSON v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL [1981] GLR 295-300, Court of Appeal', '', '../links/cases/QUAYSON v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL.pdf', 'Yes', 'EDUSEI, MENSA BOISON, WIREDU', '1981', 'appeal', 'Edusei J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The government appointed a commission of inquiry to investigate the escape of five prisoners from the Ussher Fort Prison on 12 November 1979. A number of prison officers including the appellant appeared before the commission. A report was, in due course, submitted to the government. The government also released a White Paper on the commission''s report and insofar as the appellant, who was Deputy Director of Prisons, was concerned, the government made the following statement:', 'EDUSEI, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 295-300', 'Dr. S. Twum', 'J. Boateng', 'Court of Appeal', '1981-07-20', ''),
(192, 'SAMANPA v. AMPOFO [1992] 1 GLR 456-466, Court of Appeal', '', '../links/cases/SAMANPA v. AMPOFO.pdf', 'Yes', 'LAMPTEY, ESSIEM, OFORI-BOATENG', '1992', 'appeal', 'ESSIEM  J.A. This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court, Koforidua constituted by Williams J. The said court on 15 October 1987 “struck off ” the plaintiff-appellant’s action upon a preliminary objection raised by the defendant-respondent before that court.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nBefore I deal with the grounds of appeal, I propose to give the facts of the case and the circumstances leading to the instant appeal. The dispute relates to the office of the krontihene of Akim Kotoku. The action herein was commenced by an originating summons by which the plaintiff sought the following relief from the High Court:', 'LAMPTEY, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 456-466', 'James Ahenkorah', 'W.A.N. Adumua-Bossman', 'Court of Appeal', '1992-10-29', ''),
(193, 'TAWIAH AND OTHERS v. BRAKO AND OTHERS [1973] 1 GLR 483-489, Court of Appeal', '', '../links/cases/ASIAMAH.pdf', 'Yes', 'JIAGGE, SOWAH,  KINGSLEY-NYINAH', '1973', 'appeal', ' Jiagge J.A. delivered the judgment of the court.  This appeal is from the ruling of the High Court, Koforidua, upholding a preliminary objection that the refusal of the district court to set aside a writ of fieri facias was an interlocutory decision and that failure to obtain leave to appeal was fatal and not a curable irregularity.\r\n', 'JIAGGE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 483-489', 'Jonathan Arthur', 'Fleischer', 'Court of Appeal', '1973-02-27', ''),
(194, 'REPUBLIC v. CHIEFTAINCY COMMITTEE ON WIAMOASEHENE STOOL AFFAIRS; EX PARTE OPPONG KWAME AND ANOTHER 321-340 [1971] 1 GLR', '', '../links/cases/REPUBLIC v. CHIEFTAINCY COMMITTEE.pdf', 'Yes', 'HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.', '1971', 'high', 'HAYFRON-BENJAMIN: This is a hotly contested application for an order of certiorari in respect of certain steps taken by various bodies in the proceedings concerning the destoolment of Nana Pim Owusu Ansah, one-time Wiamoasehene, in the Agona Traditional Area, Ashanti.  The bodies concerned are the Agona Traditional Council, the Chieftaincy Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Siriboe, the Chieftaincy Secretariat and the National Liberation Council.  The applicants are Nana Oppong Kwame, who claims to be the Wiamoasehene, and Obaapanin Adjoa Amponsah, Queenmother of Wiamoase.  The respondents are the Committee on Wiamoase stool affairs, Chieftaincy Secretariat, the Attorney-General and Nana Pim Owusu Ansah in respect of whose destoolment these protracted  proceedings originated.', 'HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 321-340', 'C. B. Zwennes', 'M. A. F. Ribeiro', 'High Court, Accra', '1971-01-27', ''),
(195, 'INKUMSAH v. THE REPUBLIC [1967] GLR 776-785, Court of Appeal', '', '../links/cases/INKUMSAH v. THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', 'AZU CRABBE, APALOO, LASSEY', '1967', 'appeal', ' Azu Crabbe J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. On 7 November 1967, we upheld an objection that this court had no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, and we accordingly dismissed it and intimated that we would give our reason later. We now proceed to state those reasons.', 'AZU CRABBE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 776-785', 'Jonathan Arthur', 'S.M. Boison', 'Court of Appeal', '1967-12-18', ''),
(196, 'LUTTERODT v. MENSAH NYARKO AND OTHERS [1984-86] 1 GLR 277-281', '', '../links/cases/LUTTERODT v. MENSAH NYARKO.pdf', 'Yes', 'APALOO,  WIREDU, OSEI-HWERE', '1985', 'appeal', 'Apaloo C.J. delivered the ruling of the court.  Some time in 1976, the applicant instituted proceedings against the respondents for title, possession and kindred reliefs to a piece of building land situated at Dansoman in Accra.  Six years later, that is in 1982, the High Court constituted by Mr Justice Adadevoh gave judgment for the applicant and granted him not only title to the land and house then built on it but the ancillary reliefs of possession, damages and perpetual injunction.  ', 'APALOO, C.J.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 277-281', 'Nii Amartei', 'Enoch D. Kom', 'Court of Appeal', '1985-02-05', ''),
(197, 'TANOR AND ANOTHER v. AKOSUA KOKO [1974] 1 GLR  451-464, Court of Appeal', '', '../links/cases/TANOR AND ANOTHER v. AKOSUA KOKO.pdf', 'Yes', 'APALOO, LASSEY, ARCHER', '1974', 'appeal', 'APALOO J.A.: This appeal raises some interesting questions about the true requirements of adoption of a child in customary law.  Although there is some controversy between the parties on the facts, there is also between them, a large area of agreement.\r\n\r\nThe plaintiff (i.e. the respondent) who should be in her mid-fifties, originally hailed from a town called Ogome in the Yilo Krobo District of the Eastern Region.  She was born of Krobo parents.  Late in 1933, just about the time that she reached puberty, she had an affair with a man from her home district.', 'APALOO, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 451-464', 'W. E. A. Ofori-Atta', 'K. Dua-Sakyi', 'Court of Appeal', '1974-05-06', ''),
(198, 'PLANGE v. PLANGE [1977] 1 GLR 312-323, Court of Appeal', '', '../links/cases/PLANGE v. PLANGE.pdf', 'Yes', 'SOWAH, ANIN, FRANCOIS', '1976', 'appeal', 'ANIN J. A.\r\n\r\nBart Kojo Plange died intestate on 16 May 1964 at Accra, leaving behind a widow (the plaintiff-appellant herein) whom he married firstly under customary law in 1949 and subsequently under the Marriage Ordinance, Cap. 127 (1951 Rev.), on 4 December 1954.  Upon his death, the plaintiff applied to the court below for letters of administration to administer his estate.  The defendant, a brother of the whole blood to the deceased, entered a caveat to the plaintiff''s application and filed his affidavit of interest.  As the parties could not agree on the proper person to whom letters of administration should be granted, the plaintiff, ', 'SOWAH, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 312-323', 'J. K. Agyemang', 'Lokko', 'Court of Appeal', '1976-07-26', ''),
(199, 'QUASHIE AND OTHERS v. BOAHEMA AND ANOTHER [1987-88] 1 GLR 727-739, Court of Appeal', '', '../links/cases/QUASHIE AND OTHERS v. BOAHEMA.pdf', 'Yes', 'APALOO, MENSA BOISON, ABBAN', '1985', 'appeal', 'Mensa Boison J.A. delivered the first judgment at the invitation of Apaloo C.J.  This appeal arises from the decision of the High Court, Koforidua dated 10 August 1984 in a dispute as to who was entitled, under customary law to succeed to the estate of one Ama Korantema.  There is some limited area of agreement on the facts as stated in the pleadings and as emerged from the evidence of the parties, but the facts in controversy are sharp and crucial.  The two plaintiffs, who sued in a representative capacity, are the daughters of Ama Korantema, who lived in Koforidua and whose death in August 1978 gave cause for this litigation.', 'APALOO, C.J.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 727-739', 'S. K. Akoto', 'W. A. N. Adumua-Bossman', 'Court of Appeal', '1987-07-05', ''),
(200, 'OSMOND v. HUGHES  [1967] GLR 405-423, Court of Appeal', '', '../links/cases/OSMOND v. HUGHES.pdf', 'Yes', 'OLLENNU, AZU CRABBE, APALOO', '1967', 'appeal', 'APALOO J.A.:  This is from the judgment of the High Court, Sekondi, (Bruce-Lyle J. as he then was) dated 24 January 1964. By the judgment, the court dismissed an action brought by the appellant (hereinafter called the plaintiff) against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for a declaration of title to land and building situate at Ashanti Road, Takoradi, described as plot No. 21 and for recovery [p.407] of the sum of £G312 which the plaintiff claimed the defendant collected as rent form tenants of the said premises.', 'OLLENNU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 405-423', 'C. F. Hayfron-Benjamin', 'T. D. Brodie-Mends', 'Court of Appeal', '1967-06-05', ''),
(201, 'OPPONG v. OPPONG [1992] 1 GLR 83-88, Court of Appeal', '', '../links/cases/OPPONG v. OPPONG.pdf', 'Yes', 'AMPIAH, ADJABENG, FORSTER', '1992', 'appeal', 'AMPIAH  J. A.\r\n\r\nThe plaintiff and the defendant were married customarily in 1959.  In 1973 they converted their said marriage into an Ordinance marriage.  Both are Ghanaians.  They lived in Accra.  After the 1973 marriage, the plaintiff left for London where he was joined in 1974 by the defendant.  There were eight issues of the marriage, five of whom are still living.  According to the plaintiff, in 1966 he purchased house No. V. 49, Community 4, Tema then a rental unit from one Larbi and put it in the name of the defendant. ', 'AMPIAH, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 83-88', 'James Ahenkorah', 'Aidoo', 'Court of Appeal', '1992-06-03', ''),
(202, 'STATE v. ASANTEHENE''S DIVISIONAL COURT B1; EX PARTE KUSADA [1963] 2 GLR 238-276, Supreme Court', '', '../links/cases/STATE v. ASANTEHENE''S DIVISIONAL.pdf', 'Yes', 'KORSAH, ADUMUA BOSSMAN, CRABBE', '1963', 'Supreme', ' [His lordship stated the facts as contained in the headnote and continued:] The procedure regulating an application for the writ of certiorari is provided by the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, [1954],1 Order 59, r. 3 thus:\r\n\r\n"Leave shall not be granted to apply for an order of certiorari to remove any judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding for the purpose of its being quashed, unless the application for leave is made not later than six ', 'KORSAH, C.J.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 238-276', 'Victor Owusu', 'Dr. de Graft-Johnson', 'Supreme Court', '1963-07-05', ''),
(203, 'ADISI v. CONSTRUCTION & FURNITURE CO. (W.A.) LTD. OF ACCRA [1963] 2 GLR 42-53, Supreme Court', '', '../links/cases/ADISI v. CONSTRUCTION.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, CRABBE, BLAY', '1963', 'Supreme', 'CRABBE J.S.C. This is an appeal from a refusal of Ollennu J. (as he then was) sitting in the High Court, Accra, to set aside an award of J. S. Manyo-Plange, Esquire (sole arbitrator) dismissing the applicant''s claim against the defendants.\r\n\r\nThe main grounds on which the applicant sought to impugn the award in the High Court were (1) misconduct on the part of the arbitrator and (2) error of law on the face of the award.\r\n\r\nThe basis of the court''s jurisdiction to set aside awards of arbitrators is set out in a statement of Williams J. in Hodgkinson v. Fernie.1 He said:', 'ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 42-53', 'Asafu-Adjaye', 'Quashie-Idun', 'Supreme Court', '1963-06-17', ''),
(204, 'AKOSAH v. OWUSU [1963] 2 GLR 277-284, Supreme Court', '', '../links/cases/AKOSAH v. OWUSU.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, CRABBE, AKUFO-ADDO', '1963', 'Supreme', 'AKUFO-ADDO J.S.C.: The plaintiff was at all material times a storekeeper at Koforidua for Messrs.  Commonwealth Trust Ltd. which has now ceased to exist, having been absorbed into the Ghana National Trading Corporation.  The defendant is a timber contractor living at Tafo.\r\n', 'ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'GLR 277-284', 'Victor Owusu', 'K. Narayan', 'Supreme Court', '1963-07-05', ''),
(205, 'ALEXANDER KWASI BAAH  Vrs. OWUSU AGYARKWA                \r\n', '', '../links/cases/ALEX KWASI BAAH APPEAL JUDG.pdf', 'Yes', 'ASARE KORANG, KUSI-APPIAH, APPAU', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=APPAU, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>YAW APPAU, J.A</a>:- This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Koforidua presided over by Korbieh, J. It was delivered on 18th February 2005 in favour of the plaintiff who is the respondent herein.\r\n\r\nThe facts are that the respondent in this appeal took action in the High Court, Koforidua against six members of his wider family for granting portions of ', 'ASARE KORANG, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/55/06', 'YAW BARIMA & CO', 'J.E. YEBOAH', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-01-17', ''),
(206, 'ALHAJI ABUBAKARI  vrs. ADISA ABUBAKARI          ', '', '../links/cases/ALHAJI ABUBAKARI vrs. ADISA ABUBAKARI.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, DOTSE, APALOO', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DOTSE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DOTSE, J.A.</a>:-    This is an appeal by the Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant, hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff against the Judgment of the High Court, Sekondi dated 23rd day of July, 2004.  The grounds of appeal are:-\r\n\r\n	1.	The Learned trial Judge erred when he held that Plaintiff pays ¢5 million.\r\n\r\n', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/152/2005', 'Kofi Diaba', 'E.K.S. Haizel', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-05-18', ''),
(208, 'EMMANUEL TETTEH QUAYE  vrs.  JOHNSON AKWERTTEH & ANOR', '', '../links/cases/CA. 79-2002.pdf', 'Yes', 'OMARI-SASU,TWENEBOA - KODUA,QUAYE', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=TWENEBOA-KODUA, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>TWENEBOA-KODUA, J.A.</a> -\r\nThe Appellant sued the Respondents for, inter alia, a declaration of title to a plot of land situate at Madina in Accra and lost his entire claim.  The respondents, on the other hand, succeeded on their counter-claim for reliefs as follows:\r\n“(a)	    A declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land in extent\r\n', 'OMARI-SASU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', '79/2002', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-01-01', ''),
(209, 'THE NATIONAL INVESTMENT     PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT BANK LIMITED                                   \r\nvrs. MESSRS AGYAKOT CO. LTD. AND 2 OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/NATIONAL INVEST (2).pdf', 'Yes', 'QUAYE, OWUSU, DUOSE', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=QUAYE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>QUAYE, J.A.</a>:-  This is an appeal from the ruling of the High Court, Sunyani delivered on 22nd March 2006.  The appeal was filed on 23rd March 2006.\r\nThe action was commenced in the High Court, Sunyani.  The plaintiff/respondent Bank, acting per its Board Chairman, filed the writ on 1st September 2005 together with a statement of claim.  From the averments therein, the cause of action arose from the grant of loan facilities of ¢200,000,000.00 (Two hundred million Cedis) ', 'QUAYE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/136/2006', 'KWASI AFRIFA', 'YAW WIREDU PEPRAH', 'Court of Appeal', '2007-11-01', ''),
(210, 'LAVA LIMITED  Vrs. VANOS ENTERPRISE & 9 ORS.       \r\n', '', '../links/cases/LAVA LIMITED.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, TWENEBOA-KODUA, ANIN YEBOAH', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKOTO-BAMFO J.A.</a> The plaintiff respondent commenced an action against the defendants appellants then numbering 11 for these reliefs;\r\n\r\n(1)	 mesne profits from the dates of expiry of the tenancy agreements to  date of recovery of possession.\r\n(2)	 Recovery of possession.\r\n', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'HI/230/05', 'E.A. ACCAM', 'PHILIP ADDISION', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-12-15', ''),
(211, 'K.T.B.A. GHANA LTD. Vrs. STATE INSURANCE CORP.\r\nGH. LTD.	\r\n', '', '../links/cases/KTBA vs SIC.pdf', 'Yes', 'OMARI-SASU, OWUSU-ANSAH, OSEI', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=OMARI SASU, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>OMARI SASU  J.A.: </a>  This is a case in which the Plaintiffs\\Respondents (who shall henceforth be referred to simply as “The Respondents”) sued the Defendants\\Appellants (who shall henceforth be referred to simply as “The Appellants”) in the High Court, Accra in August 2002 for the following reliefs:\r\n\r\n	“  (a)     Recovery if an amount of  ¢553,908,500.00.\r\n', 'OMARI-SASU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1 /3/2004', 'Asare Dan Kuma', 'Joainto', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-01-22', ''),
(212, 'KOFI ANIM AKUAMUAH  DARTEH & ORS. vrs.\r\nVINCENTIA ASANTE, ALHAJI ASUMA ABUBANDA\r\n', '', '../links/cases/ADISI v. CONSTRUCTION.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU (MS) , AKAMBA, ANIN-YEBOAH', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=OWUSU, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>R.C. OWUSU, J.A.</a> -The Plaintiffs\\ Applicants are in this application, praying for an order of stay of Execution of the ruling of His Lordship Asare Korang J(as he then was) dated 14th  May 2002 and by necessary implication, the Judgement of the Accra High Court dated 13th June, 1995 in suit No. 657\\94 between Vincentia Asante and Grace Osafoa Akuamoah Darteh and Another , pending appeal against the ruling of 14th May 2002.\r\n', 'OWUSU (MS), J.A', 'Civil', '', 'CM. 261-2002', 'KISSI AGYEBENG', 'CHARLES ZNENNES, BARRY', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-01-30', ''),
(213, 'P.Y. ATTAH & SONS LTD. vrs.KINGSMAN ENTERPRISE LTD.           \r\n', '', '../links/cases/KINGSMAN ENTERPRISES.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKOTO BAMFO, ASARE KORANG, OSEI', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=OSEI, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>OSEI, J.A.</a>   -  This is an appeal brought by the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to simply as Plaintiff) against the judgment of the High Court Accra dated 15/04/04.\r\n<p>In his writ of summons, the plaintiff claims against the defendant/respondent (hereinafter referred to simply as defendant), as follows\r\n', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'NO. H1/240/04', 'BOB SENYALAH', 'OPOKU ADJAYE', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-02-25', ''),
(214, 'JOWAK SAWMILLS  vrs.  HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, OMEGA WOOD PROCESSING    \r\n', '', '../links/cases/JOWAK SAWMILLS.pdf', 'Yes', 'PIESARE, DOTSE, DUOSE', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=PIESARE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>PIESARE, J.A.</a>:-    This is an interlocutory appeal from the Ruling of High Court (Commercial Division) Accra, dated 11th October,  2005.  The plaintiff-appellant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with that Ruling against it, brought this appeal upon the following grounds:-\r\n(a)	The ruling is against the weight of evidence.\r\n', 'PIESARE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'HI/61/2006', 'AGYABENG AKRASI', 'ADDO ATUAH', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-01-06', ''),
(215, 'JOHN S. BARNES  vrs. JAMES AHALIGAH       , KOFI SAMUEL AVUSU ]\r\n', '', '../links/cases/JOHNBARNES.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADINYIRA (MRS), PIESARE, KANYOKE', '2005', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=PIESARE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>PIESARE, J.A.</a>  -   This is an appeal against the judgment of the Sekondi High Court, dated 8th February, 2002, delivered by Dzamefe (J).\r\n        There are three original grounds of appeal viz:\r\n(a)	The Learned Trial Judge erred in law by failing to consider the evidence\r\nof negligence.\r\n(b)	The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he awarded an amount of ¢55 million as the \r\n', 'PIESARE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/126/2004', 'INUSAH FUSEINI', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-06-15', ''),
(216, 'JOHN K.A. KLU vrs. MAVIS DARKO, DR. KOFI APRAKU  \r\n', '', '../links/cases/JOHN KLU.pdf', 'Yes', 'FARKYE, OMARI-SASU, ANIN AKWA', '2003', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=OMARI-SASU, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>OMARI-SASU, J.A.</a>\r\n\r\nThe Appellants have filed grounds of appeal and additional grounds and these have been strenuously argued.  \r\nThe Respondent who was Plaintiff in the court below and in whose favour the trial court gave judgment has equally argued in support of the judgment of the trial Circuit Court.\r\n\r\n', 'FARKYE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'CA. NO. 49/2002', 'CHARLES HAYIBOR', 'BOAFO COR', 'Court of Appeal', '2003-11-27', ''),
(217, 'JOHN AMMAH TAGOE vrs. MOBIL OIL [GH.] LTD.                      \r\n', '', '../links/cases/JOHN AMAAH.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARYEETEY, TWENEBOA-KODUA, QUAYE', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=QUAYE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>QUAYE,  J.A.</a>  - The facts in this appeal per se, are not in controversy.  The plaintiff/appellant is one of a total number of fifteen children who survived their father Jonathan Teiko Ammah, late deceased.  The said father of the plaintiff and his siblings, in 1959 executed a lease of the ', 'ARYEETEY, J. A.', 'Civil', '', 'CA. 102/2001', 'ERIC MENSAH', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-02-20', ''),
(218, 'JANET OWUSUA vrs.THEOPHILUS AKOTUA\r\n', '', '../links/cases/JANET OWUSUA.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU ANSAH, PIESARE, APALOO', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=QUAYE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>APALOO, J.A.</a>  -  This is an appeal and cross appeal from the decision of the High Court Koforidua presided over by Marful-Sau J.  The judgment is dated 30th July 2004.\r\n	The facts and area of contention are simple and straightforward.  The parties were married under customary law on 9th September, 1984 at Moseaso Akyem in the Eastern ', 'OWUSU ANSAH, J.A', 'Civil', '', 'HI/207/2005', 'STEPHEN ASANTE BEKOE', 'R.B.K. ABOAGYE', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-11-03', ''),
(219, 'JACK HAMELRIJK, MARY TENKORANG      vrs. NANIKRAM SHENAKRAM MUKHI  \r\n', '', '../links/cases/JACK HAMELRIJK.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARYEETEY, QUAYE, ANIM-YEBOAH', '2006', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=QUAYE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>QUAYE, J.A.</a>  -   This appeal is from the judgment of the High Court, Accra, delivered on 31st July 1998 in favour of the plaintiffs therein, who are respondents in this appeal.\r\nThe facts of this action as appear from the record of appeal are that the respondents herein, had, in an earlier action in the High court, which was better identified as Suit No. ', 'ARYEETEY, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'HI/225/05', 'PETER ZWENNES', 'EKOW AWOONOR', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-05-19', ''),
(220, 'HOTEL CHEZ MOI  vrs. UNIBANK [GH] LIMITED, F.O. SQUIRE                          \r\n', '', '../links/cases/HOTEL CHEZ MOI.pdf', 'Yes', 'QUAYE, DOTSE, APALOO', '2008', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=QUAYE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>APALOO, J.A.</a>:-  This appeal emanates from the judgment of the High Court Accra dated 10th May 2007.\r\nThe facts leading to the decision of the lower court are not in dispute.\r\nThe Plaintiff/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Appellant) became indebted to the 1st Defendant/Respondent a Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 1st Respondent),  consequently it sued in the High Court Accra and obtained judgment against the ', 'QUAYE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'HI/35/2008', 'S.K. AMOAH', 'KWAKU GYAU BAAFOUR', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-05-22', ''),
(221, 'ANYETEI KWADWO PATTERSON,  JONATHAN PAKER ALLOTEY vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/pattersonAllotey_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'AMUAH, ESSILFIE BONDZIE, AFREH', '1988', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AMUAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AMUAH J.A.</a>:	This is an appeal against the decision of the National Public Tribunal, State House, dated 17th November. 1987.\r\n\r\nThe facts are contained in the judgment. During the Second Republic and before the establishment of the cattle Development Board alien exporters brought sheep, goats and cattle and sold them to Ghanaian importers under the open general licence system of importation. This was between 1969 and 1972. ', 'AMUAH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 13/88', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1987-11-07', ''),
(222, 'ARYEEQUAYE ARMAH @ JOE SINA\r\nvrs THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/A_Armah_vs_The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU, AKOTO-BAMFO, ASIAMAH', '2003', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ASIAMAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ASIAMAH, J.A.</a>:\r\n\r\nThe appellant together with six others was convicted for Robbery under section 149 of PNDC 78 and sentenced to death by the erstwhile Public Tribunal. He feels dissatisfied with his conviction and the resultant sentence and has consequently appealed against both the conviction and sentence.\r\n', 'OWUSU (MS), J.A', 'Criminal', '', 'NO.74/87', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2003-12-18', ''),
(223, 'ADOM BOATENG ANTHONY vrs. THE	REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/A_Boateng_vs._The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'AMUAH, BROBBEY, ESSILFIE BONDZIE', '1994', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AMUAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AMUAH, J.A.</A>:- This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant was tried before the erstwhile National Public Tribunal for:\r\n\r\na)	Conspiracy to commit crime namely forgery contrary to Sections 22(1) and 139 of the Criminal Code 1960 (Act 29) and section 16 of the Public Tribunals Law 1964 (PNDCL 78)\r\n', 'AMUAH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No.251/94', 'MAMATTAH', 'KWEKU BAAH', 'Court of Appeal', '1994-12-22', ''),
(224, 'AKWESI TENGEY, EMMANUEL TETTEH vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/A_Armah_vs_The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'LAMPTEY, ADJABENG, FORSTER', '1993', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=LAMPTEY, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>LAMPTEY, J.A.</A>:— On or about the 29th January, 1987 in the village of Tweapease one Kofi Frimpong was brutally murdered in cold blood. His badly mutilated body was found by a search party in a nearby forest, After investigation by the police, Akwesi Tengey, 1st appellant, Emmanuel Tetteh, 2nd appellant and one Kwame Grumah now deceased were charged with the offences of conspiracy to commit murder and murder. Kwame Grumah died before the trial could come on. ', 'LAMPTEY, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 1/93', 'Amui, Owusu', 'Anson', 'Court of Appeal', '1993-11-25', ''),
(225, 'ALEX KOBINA AKOMSI. vrs.THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/akomsi_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, PIESARE, ASIAMAH', '2004', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKAMBA, J.A.</A>: The appellant herein and two others were jointly tried on indictment before the High Court Accra presided over by GA Aryeetey, J and a seven- member jury, for the offences of conspiracy to murder contrary to sections 23 and 46 and murder contrary to section 46, both of the Criminal Code, Act 29, of 1960. ', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'H2/6/2004', 'Nii Okainjah Adamafio, Arthur-Mensah', 'Merley Wood', 'Court of Appeal', '2004-07-16', ''),
(226, 'AWUDU RASHID vrs. THE PEOPLE', '', '../links/cases/Rashid_vrs_people.pdf', 'Yes', 'AMUAH, ACQUAH, BADDOO', '1995', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AMUAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AMUAH, J.A.</A> - The prosecution were able to establish their case beyond reasonable doubt. In all, the lighting system and the time for observation were good. Moreover the period between the original observation and the subsequent identification was about six weeks, and the image of the appellant still stuck on the minds of the prosecution witnesses', 'AMUAH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 133/88', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2005-04-05', ''),
(227, 'BENJAMIN AYIQUAGE KWEKU CRABBE	vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/kwekucrabbe_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BENIN, BADDOO', '1997', 'appeal', 'OTOO: -Appeal from the decision of the panel dated 23rd February 1993. Ground (al) page 32.\r\n\r\nThe offence is contained in PNDC Law 78 S. 9 subsection (1) par. (k). Submits the word proof of which shall lie on him puts the burden of pesuasia on the accused or appellant. That burden can be discharged by raising a reasonable doubt in the court or the tribunal.\r\n', 'WOOD, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'NO. 7/93', 'AYIKOI OTOO', 'Afriyie', 'Court of Appeal', '1997-01-22', ''),
(228, 'CEPHAS KWASHIE BECKLEY AND 5 OTHERS vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/beckley_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'OFORI-BOATENG, BADDOO, GBADEGBE', '1999', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BADDOO, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>BADDOO, J.A.</a>:	Nine accused persons including the appellants herein were charged before the Western Regional Tribunal on the ~ of June, 1987, with Conspiracy to commit a crime, to wit, doing an act to sabotage the economy of Ghana.\r\n\r\nThe 7th 8th and 9th accused persons who are now at large were further charged with abuse of office for private profit while the 6th appellant herein was additionally charged with abetment of crime.\r\n', 'OFORI-BOATENG, J.S.C', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 103/88', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1999-06-21', ''),
(229, 'CHARLES QUAICOO	 vrs. THE	PEOPLE\r\n', '', '', 'No', 'AMUAH, ESSILFIE-BONDZIE, AFREH', '1995', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AFREH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AFREH. J.A.</a> - This is an appeal against sentence.\r\n\r\nOn 16/5/90 the applicant and his co-accused, one Kwame Acquah, were convicted on their own pleas of guilty of conspiracy to steal, unlawful entry and stealing and sentenced to 15 years I.H.L. on each counts, the sentences to run concurrently, on 6/7/92 applicant filed this motion but it was not heard until it was brought before this court.\r\n', 'AFREH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 51/92', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1995-06-20', ''),
(231, 'CPL. CHARLES ANWUBOH vrs. THE	REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/CPL_C._Anwuboh_vs._The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'AMUAH, FORSTER, BENIN', '1996', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=FORSTER, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>FORSTER, J.A.</a> :- The appellant was in 1989 a soldier attached to the PNDC Security Co-ordinator’s Office at the Takoradi Harbour. The function of that office was to protect goods imported into the country and to ensure that duties were paid before any imported goods were removed out of the harbour by the importer. ', 'AMUAH, J.S.C', 'Criminal', '', 'No.18/95', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2006-02-22', ''),
(232, 'DORIS YEBOAH vrs. THE REPUBLIC	Respondent\r\n', '', '../links/cases/akosuayeboah_vrs.republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'LAMPTEY, ADJABENG, LUTTERODT', '1991', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ADJABENG, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ADJABENG, J.A</a>.: On the 15th day of July, the appellant herein and two others were arraigned before the Brong Ahafo Regional Tribunal, sitting at Sunyani, charged with various drug offences. The other two persons were Awudu Seidu Baba and Saluu Abdulai. Awudu Seidu Baba who was accused, was charged with possessing India Hemp. ', 'LAMPTEY, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No.56/91', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1994-07-07', ''),
(233, 'EBENEZER MONNEY AND 2 OTHERS vrs. REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/E_Monney_2_others_vs_The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'FORSTER, BENIN, ARYEETEY', '1997', 'appeal', '', 'FORSTER, J.A.', 'Criminal', 'FORSTER, J.A.:— The 1st appellant was at the material time in this case a Pensioner. The 2nd appellant was a Gold-smith and the 3rd appellant was an Administrator at the St. Nicholas Seminary and Theological College. All lived in Cape Coast. In 1992, they were jointly charged with Possessing Forged Document contrary to Section 166 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act.20) and tried by the Central Regional Public Tribunal at Cape Coast.\r\n', 'CRA. 1/92', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1997-11-20', ''),
(234, 'EDWARD AKOTUA & ORS vrs THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/ewardakotua_vrs_rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'LARTEY, TWUMASI, ARYEETEY', '2003', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=TWUMASI, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>TWUMASI, J.A.</a>:-The 1st & 2nd Appellants who stood trial before the Circuit Court, Odumasi-Krobo were convicted of stealing and the 4th and 5th Appellants were Convicted of dishonestly receiving a black stool belonging to the Asona Royal Family of Berekuso in the Eastern Region. The said black stool was in the custody of a woman by the name NANA AKOSUA OYE I of Berekuso. The latter had kept the black stool in her room in a wardrobe under lock and key.', 'LARTEY, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 23/2002', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2003-07-16', ''),
(235, 'EMMANUEL SEY vrs THE REPUBLIC \r\n', '', '../links/cases/E_Sey_vs_The_Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BROBBEY, ESSILFIE—BONDZIE', '1996', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=WOOD, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>WOOD, J.A.</a>: A quantity of gas oil which was supplied to the Ghana Railway Corporation Kumasi, on 2nd March -1989, was found to be short by 3,740 imperial. gallons, Six persons, who were all employees of the Corporations were, in connection with this matter, arraigned before the Ashanti Regional Tribunal on a charge of DD0An8 an act with intent to sabotage the economy of Ghana Contrary to S. 9(1)(f) of PNDCL. 78, The act complained of', 'WOOD, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 3/90', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1996-02-14', ''),
(236, 'EVANS KOFI APETORGBOR, KWESI WOLDE MIKAL vrs. THE  REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/E_K_Apetorgbor_1other_vs_The_Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'FOSTER, BROBBEY, AFREH', '1997', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AFREH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AFREH, J.A.</a>:	The appellants herein were on 29th June, 1993 convicted by the National Public Tribunal, sitting aT Accra, of possessing narcotic drugs contrary to section 2(1) and (2) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions Law, 1990 (PNDC 236) and were each sentenced to 10 years I.H.L.', 'FOSTER, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 31/93', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1997-10-16', ''),
(237, 'FEDELIX YERBI, ANTHONY KWESI AVALIFO\r\n vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/F_Benneh_vs_The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'FOSTER, BADDOO, AFREH', '1998', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=FORSTER, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>FORSTER, J.A.</a> : The appellants are currently standing trial at the Regional Tribunal, Greater Accra on two Counts - Conspiracy to Steal and Stealing, in respect of the amount of 100 million CEDIS, “of which they are not the owners”. In the course of trial, and after the prosecution had called ten witnesses, the prosecuting attorney applied under S.58 of\r\nthe Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) ', 'FOSTER, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 6/98', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1998-05-28', ''),
(238, 'FLAMINGO FOODS LIMITED vrs THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/flamingofoods_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'TWUMASI, ARYEETEY, OWUSU-ANSAH', '2002', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=TWUMASI, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>TWUMASI, J.A. </a>: This is an appeal against an Order made by the Regional Public Tribunal, Accra issued on the 20th November, 1998 for the forfeiture of a landed property situate in Accra.\r\n\r\nThe Order was made pursuant to an application made by the Attorney-\r\n', 'TWUMASI, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 29/2001', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2002-04-23', ''),
(239, 'FRANK BENNEH vrs.	THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '', 'No', 'FOSTER, BADDOO, AFREH', '1998', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=FORSTER, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>FORSTER. J.A.</a>: This is an appeal against the decision of the Greater Accra\r\n\r\nRegional Tribunal for refusing bail to the appellant who was standing trial on four\r\n\r\ncounts for narcotic offences. He appealed to this court against the ruling dated\r\n\r\n7/7/98.\r\n\r\nAt the hearing of this appeal, Kakraba Quarshie,', 'FORSTER, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 25/98', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1998-07-27', ''),
(240, 'NANA AGYEMANG @ GEEMAN, ABEIKU NYAME @ JAGGERPEE  vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/geeman_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'FOSTER, BADDOO, AFREH', '1998', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BADDOO, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>BADDOO, J.A.</a>: The facts of the case adduced by the Prosecution before the Jury were that on the 9th of January 1995, about 9.00 a.m. a young lady by name NADA KHARDI chartered a taxi, No. ACA 4590 from Gloryland Hotel to the residence of the 1st Appellant Nana Agyemang , alias Geeman, at Dome, on SALT STREET. The taxi was driven by one Kwesi Adjei, now deceased.', 'FORSTER, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 7/98', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1998-11-19', ''),
(241, 'GLADYS AMPOFO  vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/G_Ampofo_vs_The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'AMUAH, FOSTER, BENIN', '1996', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=FORSTER, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>FORSTER, J.A.</a>: The appellant a Ghanaian by birth was resident in Netherlands and held a Foreign Passport. On 4/8/93 she was travelling by air back to the Netherlands, when she was searched at the last check point at the Kotoka International Airport, Accra', 'AMUAH, JSC', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 10/94', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1996-02-22', ''),
(242, 'GODFRED SAMMY AMISSAH vrs. THE  REPUBLIC	\r\n', '', '../links/cases/sammymensah_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'OFORI-BOATENG, BADDOO, GBADEGBE', '1999', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=OFORI-BOATENG, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>OFORI-BOATENG, J.S.C</a>:	This is an appeal from the High Court, Kumasi. The facts are that the appellant, Mr. Godfred Sammy Amissah and the deceased, Miss Lydia Akoto Frimpong were lovers. The deceased was about four and a half months pregnant with the appellant. One morning at about 8.OOam on 10th January, 1994 the appellant went to the house of the deceased for a brief period. Nobody heard of what transpired between them. The appellant was not his usual self.', 'OFORI-BOATENG, J.S.C', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 15/97', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1999-07-19', ''),
(243, 'IGNATTUS ABABILA ABABAGRE & ANOR. vrs.\r\nTHE PEOPLE\r\n', '', '../links/cases/ignattusanor_vrs_people.pdf', 'Yes', 'OFORI-BOATENG, BROBBEY, LARTEY', '1994', 'appeal', '', 'OFORI-BOATENG, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', '', 'S.K. Amofa, Attah Akyem', 'Bright Akwetey', 'Court of Appeal', '1994-04-28', ''),
(244, 'ISAAC DZAKPOE AND 5 OTHERS vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/I_Dzakpo_5_others_vs_The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BROBBEY, BENIN', '1997', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=WOOD, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>MRS. WOOD, J.A.</a>:	All the six appellants were, on the 29th of August 1996 convicted of the offence of  “offensive conduct conducive to breaches of the peace” and “causing unlawful damage”. The 4th and 6th appellants succeeded in having their convictions with respect to the latter set aside. ', 'WOOD, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 24/98', 'Hoeyi', 'Merley Wood', 'Court of Appeal', '1999-02-18', ''),
(245, 'JONATHAN DEY vrs.	THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/J_Dey_vs_The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'FORSTER, BENIN, ARYEETEY', '1998', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=FORSTER, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>FORSTER, J.A.</a>:— The appellant was a Storekeeper of a shop owned by the complainant, Mrs. Bertha Nunyuie, at Ho. The goods sold at the shop included cement and, drinks. The appellant was charged in one count for stealing the sum of ¢4,999,400.00 and ¢2,224,600.00 being the proceeds from the sale of cement and drinks respectively. ', 'FORSTER, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'NO. 16/97', 'Sophia Quantson', 'Owoo', 'Court of Appeal', '1998-02-12', ''),
(246, 'JOSEPH YAW NIMO vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/josephnimo_vrs_rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BROBBEY, ESSILFIE-BONDZIE', '1996', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BROBBEY, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>BROBBEY, J.A.</a>:	The facts which gave rise to this case were as follows: The appellant was a driver’s mate to a commercial vehicle. It used to ply between Obuasi and Jacobu. On 13th January, 1987, one Kwame Dua Adu joined the vehicle at Jacobu. At.a place called Jasikasu junction. ', 'WOOD, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'NO. 17/95', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1996-03-24', ''),
(247, 'JOSEPH KOW GHUNNY, KWESI ABEKA-KWANSAH vrs.	THE	REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/ekowghuney_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, ESSILFIE-BONDZIE, BROBBEY', '1996', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ESSILFIE-BONDZIE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ESSILFIE-BONDZIE J.A.</a>:— The appeal was lodged by the two appellants against their conviction and sentence by the National Public Tribunal on the 20th January 1989: The 1st appellant however died before the appeal could be heard. His appeal therefore abated on his death. The only appeal before the court is that of the 2nd appellant (who will hereafter be referred to as the 2nd accused) the 2nd accused was charged with', 'WOOD, J.A', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 89/89', 'Kobina Asiedu-Aboagye', 'Ofori-Dwuma', 'Court of Appeal', '1996-03-28', ''),
(248, 'KOBINA AMUA-SEKYI & ORS vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/kobinasekye_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'AMUAH, ACQUAH, BADDOO', '1995', 'appeal', 'Upon conviction the first appellant was fined ¢3 million cedis or in default five years imprisonment with hard labour In addition his property was confiscated.\r\n\r\nThe appellant filed Notice of Appeal on 24th March, 1993 and in July, 1993 the Tribunal ceased to exist. On 17th October, 1993 the 1st appellant died before he could pursue the appeal Probate of the Will was granted to Executors Exhibit A. ', 'AMUAH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 6/94', 'Ernest Essamoah', 'Asare Korang', 'Court of Appeal', '1995-03-27', ''),
(249, 'KWAME DAGARTI  vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/K_Dagarti_vs_The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'LAMPTEY, ADJABENG, FORSTER', '1993', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=LAMPTEY, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>LAMPTEY, J.A.</a>: On 14th December, 1984 the Appellant, Kwame Dagarti alias Bukari was found guilty of the murder of Thomas Adika and convicted accordingly. The statutory sentence of death was passed on him, He appealed to this court against his conviction and sentence on several grounds, The facts which gave rise to the prosecution of the appellant may be briefly stated as follows,', 'LAMPTEY, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 19/92', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1993-03-25', ''),
(250, 'MOHAMMED ABASH AND 4 ORS vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/abass_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BENIN, BADDOO', '1997', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BADDOO, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>BADDOO, J.A.</a> : The Circuit Court at Tarkwa, on the 23rd of February 1996, convicted the appeallants on two counts of conduct conducive to a breach of the peace and threat of death. They were sentenced to 18 months and 3 years respectively with hard labour', 'WOOD, J.A', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 14/96', 'Gaisie', 'Owoo', 'Court of Appeal', '1997-03-05', ''),
(251, 'INSPECTOR PATRICK MARMAH vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '', 'No', 'BADDOO, FORSTER, AFREH', '1997', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BADDOO, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>BADDOO, J.A.</a> : The appellant was convicted by the NATIONAL PUBLIC TRIBUNAL on the 9th of April 1987 on two counts of CONSPIRACY to steal and stealing, 78 sticks of cigarettes, suspected to contain narcotics drugs, which were exhibits in a case.', 'BADDOO, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 58/87', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1997-05-22', ''),
(252, 'NANA KWAKU TABIRE ABABIO vrs. THE REPUBLIC ', '', '../links/cases/N_K_T_Ababio_vs_The_Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'SAPONG, ESSILIFIE-BONDZIE, BENIN', '1996', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BENIN, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>BENIN, J.A.</a>: On 21/12/93 the High Court at Sunyani allowed an appeal against the conviction of the respondent herein by the Circuit Court, Wenchi, and acquitted and discharged him. Reasons for the decision were delivered on 3/2/94. On 1/3/94 the appellant herein filed a notice of appeal against the decision of the High Court. ', 'SAPONG, J.A', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 31/96', 'ASARE-KORANG', 'ATTA AKYEA', 'Court of Appeal', '1996-07-16', ''),
(253, 'NANA OPONG SARFO AGYEMANG II vrs. THE REPUBLIC	\r\n', '', '../links/cases/N_O_S_Agyemang_vs_The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'AMUAH, BROBBEY, FORSTER', '1993', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=FORSTER, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>FORSTER J.A.</a>:. The appellant, Nana Oppong Sarfo. Agyamang II, is the Chief of Bawore, in Ashanti. On 5th day of August, 1991 he was arraigned before the Curcuit Court, Kumasi, on a charge of stealing “three wooden Electric Poles valued ¢75,000.00, the property of Bawore Citizens. At the close of the case for the prosecution, learned counsel for the defence submitted that the accused person ', 'AMUAH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 6/93', 'Paapa Dadson', 'Asare Bediako', 'Court of Appeal', '1993-06-22', '');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(254, 'NANA OWUSU ACHIAW BREMPONG II vrs.THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/NOABrempong_II_vs_ The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'AMUAH, FOSTER, BENIN', '1995', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=WOOD, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>BENIN, J.A.</a>. -The accused, now appellant, was arraigned before the Ashanti Regional Tribunal on a charge of Stealing under Section 124(1) of the	Criminal Code,1960 (Act 29). The particulars of offence read: Nana Owusu Achiaw Brempong II, Omanhene, during the year 1980 at Atebubu in the Brong Ahafo Region and within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, did steal one Mercedes Benz Car No. GK 1990 value ', 'AMUAH, J.S.C', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 29/92', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1995-12-21', ''),
(255, 'NENE TETTEH LIMO AND 2 ORS vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '', 'No', 'AFREH, AKOTO-BAMFO, AMONOO-MONNEY', '2001', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.</a>	- On 27th July, 2000, this Court gave its decision in the appeal filed by the three appellants herein and reserved its reasons which we now proceed to give.\r\n\r\nNene Limo II alias Hushie the 1st appellant herein was arraigned before the National Public Tribunal together with 20 other persons two of whom are\r\n', 'AFREH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 13/90', 'SOLOMON QUANDZIE', 'GYAMBIBY', 'Court of Appeal', '2001-03-08', ''),
(256, 'NICOLAS MENDS-BUAH	vrs THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/mendbuah_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BROBBEY, ESSILFIE-BONDZIE', '1996', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BROBBEY, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>BROBBEY, J.A.</a>: - The second leg of the appeal relates to the sentence of imprisonment Imposed on him.He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment after his conviction. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding the conviction of that offence, I am of the opinion that that sentence is rather on the low side. The Courts Act, 1993, Act 459, S. 30(a)(i) and (b) empowers this Court to amend the sentence of the trial Tribunal. At the trial the Tribunal in sentencing the appellant stated\r\n', 'WOOD, J.A', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 62/92', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1996-03-07', ''),
(257, 'NII ARMAH QUAYE,	KWABENA ACHEAMPONG	  vrs	THE PEOPLE \r\n', '', '../links/cases/armahquaye_vrs_people.pdf', 'Yes', 'ESSIEM, FORSTER, ACQUAH', '1995', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=WOOD, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>FORSTER, J.A.</a> :— On 15th April, 1991, the National Public Tribunal, Accra, convicted the two appellants on two counts of Possessing Narcotic Drugs under sections 2(1) and (2) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Law, 1990 (PNDCL.236). The Tribunal imposed a custodial sentence of 10 years IHL, on each appellant. Aggrieved by their convictions they appealed to the National Public Tribunal Appellate and Review Division.\r\n\r\n', 'ESSIEM, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 26/91', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1995-10-19', ''),
(258, 'NUHU ADAMU vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/nuhu_vrs_rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'AFREH, AKOTO-BAMFO, AMONOO-MONNEY', '2001', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AMONOO-MONNEY, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AMONOO-MONNEY, J.A.</a>: On 6th December, 2000 we allowed the appeal of the appellant, quashed his conviction for Robbery, and set aside the sentence of death by shooting by firing squad imposed on him on 20th May, 1988 by the erstwhile National Public Tribunal that exercised criminal jurisdiction under the repealed Public Tribunals Law, 1984 (PNDCL 78). We now proceed to give reasons for allowing the appeal.', 'AFREH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 60/88', 'OSAFO-OSEI', 'GYAMBIBY', 'Court of Appeal', '2001-03-08', ''),
(259, 'OSITA NOKWE	 vrs. THE REPUBLIC \r\n', '', '../links/cases/O_Nokwe_vs_The_Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'OFORI-BOATENG, BADDOO, GBADEGBE', '1999', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=GBADEGBE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>GBADEGBE. J.A.</a>: On the 16th of November, 1993, the appellant herein appeared before the High Court, Ho on a single count of possessing Indian Hemp, contrary to Section 2(1) of PNDCL 236. When the charge was read over and explained to him, he pleaded guilty with explanation. The explanation which he offered to the charge which he faced was recorded in the proceedings of the said date which may be found at page one of the record of proceedings as follows:', 'OFORI-BOATENG, J.S.C', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 12/97', 'Owusu Fodjwour', 'GYAMBIBY', 'Court of Appeal', '1999-07-19', ''),
(260, 'D/INSPR PATRICK ALLASANI MARMAH, 16373 D/CPL KWADWO KUMA vrs THE PEOPLE	\r\n', '', '', 'No', 'AMUAH, FOSTER, BENIN', '1995', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=FORSTER, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>FORSTER, J.A.</a>. The two appellants both members of the Ghana Police Service, were tried by the National Public Tribunal on two counts charging them jointly with conspiracy to steal and. stealing 78 sticks of cigarettes suspected to contain a narcotic drug, being exhibits in a case referred to the Police for investigation. On 6th day of April, 1987, the N.P.T. convicted them on both counts.', 'AMUAH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 58/87', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1995-12-21', ''),
(261, 'THE PEOPLE vrs. RICHMOND YOOSI MENSAH\r\n', '', '../links/cases/people_vrs_yoosimensah.pdf', 'Yes', 'ESSIEM, AMUAH, FORSTER', '1994', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=FORSTER, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>FORSTER, J.A.</a> :	On 21st January, 1991, the appellant was convicted by the. Regional Public Tribunal, Tema on two Counts, The first Count charged him with conspiracy to steal and 2nd Count charged him with stealing the sum of 08 million, The other accused person ', 'ESSIEM, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 12/91', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1991-07-01', ''),
(262, 'PETER KWAKU ADJEI vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/adjei_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BENIN, BADDOO', '1997', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=WOOD, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>MRS. WOOD, J.A.</a>:	This appeal turns on the rather difficult and not often used ground namely that "the verdict of the jury should set aside on the ground that under all the circumstances of the case it is unsafe and unsatisfactory". It also happens to be the only ground of appeal filed by the appellant who was convicted by the unanimous verdict of the jury.', 'WOOD, J.A', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 6/95', 'AMIJI', 'FORI-DJUMAH', 'Court of Appeal', '1997-03-20', ''),
(263, 'RAYMOND KOFI BEGAH, CYNTHIA ESI BARNES	vrs. THE REPUBLIC				', '', '../links/cases/begah_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'FORSTER, BADDOO, AFREH', '1998', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AFREH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AFREH J.A.</a>:	On 30/7/98 we allowed the appeals of the appellants herein and acquitted and discharged them but did not give the reasons for our decision. We now proceed to do that.\r\n\r\nThe appellants were convicted before R.K. Apaloo, J, sitting with a jury at the Criminal Session of the High Court at Accra on 27/11/97 for the offences of conspiracy to murder and the murder of one Lena Abla Hohoabu, a student\r\n', 'FORSTER, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 14/98', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1998-12-03', ''),
(264, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. EMMANUEL MENSAH XENYO\r\n', '', '../links/cases/The_Rep_vs_E_M_Xenyo.pdf', 'Yes', 'BROBBEY, ARYEETEY, OWUSU (MS)', '2002', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=OWUSU, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>OWUSU, J.A.</a>:	The Respondent herein was charged on one count of Defrauding by false pretence contrary to Section 131 of the Criminal Code and\r\n\r\n5 counts of issue of false cheques contrary to Section 313A (1) of the same\r\n\r\nCriminal Code of 1960 as amended by N.R.C.D. 160. He was arraigned\r\n\r\nbefore the Circuit Tribunal chaired by His Honour C.L. Quist with him Messrs\r\n\r\nH.E. Golightly and H.H. Kpongo as panel members.\r\n\r\n', 'BROBBEY, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 8/2002', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2002-05-23', ''),
(265, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. TARIHIRU BAKU \r\n', '', '../links/cases/The_Rep_vs_T_Baku.pdf', 'Yes', 'TWUMASI, ARYEETEY, ADINYIRA(MRS)', '2001', 'appeal', 'A brief background to this appeal is as follows: The respondent, Tahiru Baku was charged before the circuit tribunal with the offence of Causing Unlawfull Damage contrary to section 172 (1) (b) of Criminal Code, :1960\r\n\r\n(Act 29). The particulars of offence read as follows: “Tahiru Baako © Ango:\r\n', 'TWUMASI, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 8/2001', 'SILVIA ADUSU', 'OSAFO OSEI', 'Court of Appeal', '2001-07-18', ''),
(266, 'THE REPUBLIC  vrs. YAW KARIKARI AND 4 ORS.\r\n', '', '../links/cases/Y_Karikari_4_others_vs_The_Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'AFREH, AKOTO-BAMFO, AMONOO-MONNEY', '2001', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AFREH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AFREH. J.A.</a>: - On 6th December, 2000, we acquitted and discharged the appellant who had been convicted on two counts of conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery by the Ashanti Regional Public Tribunal, Kumasi, chaired by Mr. K.B. Aning, sitting with Nana Siaw Antwi II and Nana Owusu Afriyie as panel members, on 26th January 1989.', 'AFREH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'CRA 6/99', '', '', '', '2001-03-08', ''),
(267, 'SAMUEL NELSON vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/nelson_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'BROBBEY, FORSTER , AFREH', '1997', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=FORSTER, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>FORSTER, J.A.</a> : The appellant was convicted on 10th September, 1996 by the Regional Tribunal, Accra on a charge of Stealing contrary to Section 124 of the Criminal Code 1960 (Act 29). He was sentenced to a term of 12 months IHL', 'BROBBEY, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'NO. 6/97', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1997-06-05', ''),
(268, 'SOLOMON KOFI EFFAH,	ASUBONTENG ASAMOAH vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/SK_Effah_vs_The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'AFREH, AKOTO-BAMFO, AMONOO-MONNEY', '2000', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=WOOD, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AMONOO-MONNEY, J.A.</a>:	On 13th April, 2000 we allowed the~ appeal of the 2~ appellant, quashed his conviction for Abetment of Stealing, and set aside the enhanced sentence imposed on him, on appeal, by the Koforidua High Court. We now proceed to give reasons for allowing his appeal, and also to give judgment in the appeal by the 1st appellant.\r\n', 'AFREH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'NO. 6/2000', 'OCANSEY, OSAFO-OSEI', 'GYAMBIBY', 'Court of Appeal', '2000-07-27', ''),
(269, 'SAUL METTLE	vrs.	THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/S_Mettle_vs_The_Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'OFORI-BOATENG, BADDOO, GBADEGBE', '1999', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=GBADEGBE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>GBADEGBE. J.A.</a>: The Appellant was convicted by the Regional Tribunal at Accra on 30-7-97 for possessing a narcotic drug contrary to section 2(i) and (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control) Enforcement and Sanctions Law, P.N.D.C L.236. Against his conviction, the appellant has lodged a petition to this court on a number of grounds namely:\r\n\r\n(a)	The judgment is against the weight of the evidence\r\n', 'OFORI-BOATENG, J.S.C', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 7/99', 'AMARFIO', 'AMARTE', 'Court of Appeal', '1999-07-19', ''),
(270, 'SOLOMON SUNDAY TUNDE ABASS AND 8 ORS. vrs.  THE REPUBLIC', '', '', 'No', 'TWUMASI, ARYEETEY, ADINYIRA', '2001', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ADINYIRA, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ADINYIRA(Mrs) J.A.</a>:	- The appellants were convicted by the Regional Tribunal Cape Coast, on 14 June, 2000 on various charges of conspiracy to cause financial loss to Ghana Telecom, causing financial loss to Ghana Telecom, and defrauding by false pretences. ', 'TWUMASI, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'CRA. 25/2000', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2001-07-18', ''),
(271, 'SULEMANA YAKUBU AND 2 ORS. vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/sulemanyakubu_vrs_state.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BENIN, BADDOO', '1997', 'appeal', 'GHARTEY: An appeal against the National Public Tribunal dated 2/9/92. The decision is at page 66. Reason is contained at pages 68-78. Ground 1 of Additional Grounds of appeal. Reasons - Page 76 lines', 'WOOD, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 36/92', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1997-02-04', ''),
(272, 'SYMON ATIGAKU vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/S_Atigaku_vs_The_Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'BROBBEY, FORSTER, AFREH', '1997', 'appeal', '', 'BROBBEY, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 1/97', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1997-10-16', ''),
(273, 'TAMBIRE ANAFO vrs THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/T_Anafo_vs_The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'LAMPTEY, ADJEBENG, LUTTERODT', '1994', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ADJABENG, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ADJABENG, J.A.</a>:	On the 19th May, 1989, the appellant, Tambire Anafo, was convicted Of the offence of murder and sentenced to death by the High Court, Tamale, sitting with a jury. Dissatisfied with his conviction, the appellant appealed to this Court.\r\n\r\nThe facts of the case are that on 28th May, 1983, owing to shortage of water in the area, ', 'LAMPTEY, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No.4/90', 'George Mensah', 'Anson', 'Court of Appeal', '1994-01-27', ''),
(274, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. NANA GYAKORANG ADU TWUM II vrs. ', '', '', 'No', 'AMUAH, ACQUAH, BADDOO', '1995', 'appeal', 'Mr. Anthony Gyambiby- This case came up for hearing on 20th February 1995. At the instance of Counsel for the appellant this case was adjourned sine die for reason that he was briefed at short notice the Court obliged him for adjournment', 'AMUAH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 1/95', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1995-02-20', ''),
(275, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. THE GOVERNOR\r\n', '', '../links/cases/republic_vrs_bog.pdf', 'Yes', 'AFREH, AKOTO-BAMFO, AMONOO-MONNEY', '2000', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AFREH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AFREH, J.A.</a>: This is an appeal from the ruling of the Regional Tribunal Accra chaired by B.O. Tetteh, J sitting with Messrs R.A. Quarshie and A.K. Arhin as Panel Members on 18/08/2000.\r\n\r\nThe applicant/respondent herein (respondent) Sebastian Gavor, and two other persons were on 22/5/2000 charged with two counts of (1) conspiracy to steal ', 'AFREH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'NO. 19/2000', 'KUENYEHIA', 'GYAMBIBY', 'Court of Appeal', '2001-01-25', ''),
(276, 'WINFRED MILOR ANANE KOFI AKPBEY  vrs THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/akpbey_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'AMUAH, ESSILlFIE-BONDZIE, AFREH', '1999', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ESSILIFIE-BONDZIE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ESSILIFIE-BONDZIE, J.A.</a>:	The appellant (who will hereinafter refer to as the\r\n\r\n1St accused) was originally charged together with five other accused persons.\r\n\r\nThe 5th and 6th accuseds were tried in absentia. 3d and 4th accused were\r\n\r\nacquitted and discharged. The 1st and 2nd accused persons were found guilty of\r\n\r\nCount 1 and convicted.\r\n', 'AMUAH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 11/95', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1999-11-16', ''),
(277, 'WILLIAM AFELETE DOE  vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/afeletedoe_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'AFREH, AKOTO-BAMFO, AMONOO-MONNEY', '2000', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKOTO-BAMFO(MRS) J.A.</a> :- The appellant and one other person who were both employees at the Kintampo branch of the Ghana Commercial Bank were arraigned before the Brong Ahafo Regional Tribunal on charges of conspiracy to commit a crime, falsification of accounts and stealing contrary to Sections 23(1), 140 and 124 respectively of the Criminal Code, Act 29.', 'AFREH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 12/99', 'WILLIAM ODURO', 'JOHANNES VEGBA', 'Court of Appeal', '2000-04-13', ''),
(278, 'W. 0. II KWABENA ADDO  vrs.	THE REPUBLIC	\r\n', '', '../links/cases/W_O_II_ K_ Addo_vs_The Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'OFORI-BOATENG, BADDOO, GBADEGBE', '1999', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BADDOO, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>BADDOO, J.A.</a>: The appellant Warrant Officer Class II, Kwabena Addo was tried by the Disciplinary Court Martial of the Ghana Armed Forces, on two counts of Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline contrary to Section 54(1) of the Armed Forces Act 105 of 1962.', 'OFORI-BOATENG, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 3/98', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '1999-03-18', ''),
(279, 'THE REPUBLIC  vrs. BARIMA BOSOMPEM DANSO II \r\n', '', '../links/cases/theRep_vs_BB_DansoII.pdf', 'Yes', 'ESSIEM, FORSTER, ACQUAH', '1995', 'appeal', 'This is an appeal against the judgment of\r\n\r\nthe Eastern Regional Public Tribunal, dated 1st February,\r\n\r\n1991. The appellant, the Chief of Tweapease, was charged\r\n\r\nbefore the Tribunal for\r\n\r\n“STATEMENT OF OFFENCES: stealing contrary to section 124(1)  of Act 29/60 (Two counts)\r\n', 'ESSIEM, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 11/91', 'Anto-Awakye', 'Ofori Dzumah', 'Court of Appeal', '1995-01-26', ''),
(280, 'ZAKARI BAKARI vrs. THE PEOPLE', '', '../links/cases/Z_Bakari_vs_The_Rep.pdf', 'Yes', 'AMUAH, BROBBEY, ESSILIFIE-BONDZIE', '1994', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ESSILIFIE-BONDZIE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ESSILIFIE-BONDZIE, J.A.</a>: This as an appeal from the judgment of the Northern Regional Public Tribunal sitting at Tamale on the 12th October., 1989, The appellant (who will hereinafter referred to the 1st accused) was charged with a one count of doing an act with intent to sabotage the economy of Ghana contrary to section 9(1) (f) of PNDC Law 78 and section 16 of PNPC Law 78.\r\n', 'AMUAH, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 23/94', 'Amui', 'Ofori Gyumah', 'Court of Appeal', '1994-12-22', ''),
(281, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. KWABENA AMANING @ TAGOR & Another\r\n', '', '../links/cases/TAGORAPPEAL.pdf', 'Yes', 'PIESARE, APPAU,ADDO', '2009', 'appeal', 'YAW APPAU, J.A.\r\nThough I did not have the opportunity to read beforehand the elaborate and well elucidated lead judgment of my learned senior colleague Piesare, J.A., I agree with him in all respects that the appeal before us has all the merits in the world for which the convictions and sentences of the appellants must be quashed without any hesitation whatsoever. I also appreciate the wisdom he exhibited in the said judgment. I do not wish to add anything substantial to what my learned senior colleague has already said', 'PIESARE, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'ACR 4/2007', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2008-07-24', ''),
(285, 'TONY ADAMS vrs. ANANG SOWAH\r\n', '', '../links/cases/ANANG _SOWAH _vs _ADAMS_COMP.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, ANSAH, OWUSU, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C:  \r\n\r\nThe Defendant-appellant-applicant (hereinafter called the execution debtor) applies to this court "for the stay of execution of the order for delivery of possession of H/No 6C 153/29, East Legon, Mpeasem, Accra and or suspension of the enforcement of the said order for delivery of possession."  \r\n\r\nIt will be seen from the formulation of this application that the alternative form of the order, it is a mere variation of language; ', 'OWUSU (MS), J.S.C:', 'Civil', '', 'J8/2/2009', 'BUABENG, OSAFO ', 'ANTHONIO, WISDOM ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-01-14', ''),
(284, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. THE HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ACCRA,\r\nEX PARTE THE TRUST BANK,AMPOMAH PHOTO LAB LTD & 3 ORS. (INTERESTED PARTIES)\r\n', '', '../links/cases/The_Republic_v_The_Trust_Bank.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, DATE-BAH, ANSAH, ADINYIRA, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2008', 'supreme', 'DR. DATE-BAH JSC: The Facts\r\n\r\nWhat is in issue in this suit is the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear a fresh action challenging an aspect of a consent judgment entered by a court of coordinate jurisdiction.  The applicant bank brought action in the Commercial Division of the High Court against the interested parties in this suit in respect of a loan transaction.  The parties to that suit agreed to settle their dispute and their agreement was embodied in a consent judgment of the Commercial Division of the High Court.  ', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J5/23/2008', 'BOAKYE, REBECCA  ', 'BROWN, EBOW  ', 'Supreme Court', '2008-11-12', ''),
(286, 'GATEWAY WORSHIP CENTRE vrs.DAVID SOON BOON SEO ', '', '../links/cases/BEN_ADJEI_ANOR_V_DAVID_SOON_BOON_SEO.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKUFFO, DATE-BAH, ADINYIRA, OWUSU, DOTSE ', '2009', 'supreme', 'JUDGMENT\r\nAKUFFO, JSC:\r\n\r\nThis is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 9th December, 2005, which upheld a judgment of the Circuit Court dated 8th December, 2003 in favour of the Respondents herein.<br>  \r\n<b>Brief Background</b><p>\r\nThe Appellant is a missionary of Korean nationality and was at all material times resident in the Tema Metropolitan area. The 1st Respondent is the ', 'AKUFFO (MS), J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/12/2008', 'AHENKORAH, JAMES  ', 'MBEAH, CHARLES  ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-01-21', ''),
(287, 'JAAS CO. LIMITED,TOGBE HORNOMENU \r\nvrs. EDWARD APAU,MADAM AKUA ACHEMPOMAA', '', '../links/cases/JAAS_COMPANY_LIMITED_(COMP).pdf', 'Yes', 'AKUFFO, DATE-BAH, ADINYIRA , OWUSU, DOTSE', '2009', 'supreme', 'JONES DOTSE (J.S.C)\r\nThe facts in this appeal admit of no controversy whatsoever.\r\nThe Plaintiff/Appellant and Co-Plaintiff/Appellants hereinafter referred to as the 1st and 2nd Appellants claimed in their amended writ of summons in the High Court, against the Defendant/Respondent and later the Co-Defendant/Respondent hereinafter also referred to as the 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively, the following reliefs:', 'AKUFFO (MS), J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/18/2008', 'BUOADU, A. G. ', 'SAHNOON, MOHAMMED ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-01-29', ''),
(288, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. FAST TRACK HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX-PARTE: SIAN GOLDFIELDS LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/The_Rep_vs_Fast_Track_High_Court_Sian_Goldfields.pdf', 'Yes', 'BROBBEY, ANSAH, ADINYIRA, DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH', '2009', 'supreme', 'ANIN YEBOAH, JSC:-\r\nThe applicant herein was sued by the interested party for recovery of a sum of money due and owing to the interested party.  The usual ancillary relief of interest was also endorsed on the writ.  The facts leading to the claim is not necessary for the determination of this application.  It appears, however, that the interested party was represented by its lawful attorney, one Mr. Kwaku Twumasi Ampofo.  ', 'BROBBEY, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J5/8/2009', 'AGBENOTO, MAWUENA  ', 'THOMPSON, NII AKWEI BRUCE  ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-01-29', ''),
(289, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS;EX-PARTE: OPANYIN KOBINA AMOAH     \r\n', '', '../links/cases/THE_REPUBLIC_Vs_CENTRAL_REGIONAL_HOUSE_OF_CHIEFS.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BROBBEY, ANSAH, DOTSE, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', 'BROBBEY, J.S.C: The undisputed facts in this application were that the occupant of the Adonten Stool of the Twifo Hyeman Traditional Area died: Succession to that stool was the prerogative of the Aberadze family of that Traditional Area. It was alleged that the Obaapaanin and head of that family were acting on the instructions of the paramount chief of Twifo Hemang Traditional Area, ', 'WOOD (Mrs), CJ ', 'Civil', '', 'J4/8/2008', 'OWUSU, KWABENA ', 'ADDINGTON, GUSTAVA  ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-01-14', ''),
(290, 'MADAM AFUA NKUAH vrs. YAA KONADU TONY AGYEMANG BOATENG\r\n', '', '../links/cases/AFUA_NKUAH_VRS YAA KONADU & ANOR (COMP).pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BROBBEY, ANSAH, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', 'ANIN YEBOAH, J.S.C:-\r\nThis is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated the 13/03/2006.  The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Kumasi which was delivered on 15/07/2002.  The Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant who for the sake of brevity shall be referred to as the Appellant herein on 25/10/1996 issued a writ of summons against the Defendant/Appellant/Respondent (who shall be referred to in this judgment as the Respondent). ', 'WOOD (Mrs), CJ ', 'Civil', '', 'J4/9/2008', 'AGBOSU, L. K.  ', 'ASANTE-KROBEA, K. A. ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-02-11', ''),
(291, 'YAA ANTWI vrs. N.T.H.C.', '', '../links/cases/ANTWI_V_NTHC.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKUFFO, DATE-BAH, ADINYIRA , OWUSU, DOTSE', '2009', 'supreme', 'DR. DATE-BAH JSC:  This case calls for resort to the basic analytical tools for determining the formation of contracts, including offer, invitation to treat, acceptance and intention to create legal relations, which are to be found set out in the earlier chapters of textbooks, and practice books, on the law of contract.  To our mind, the outcome from the application of those tools is clear and self-evident.  We are, thus, surprised that this case has had to travel this far for its resolution.', 'AKUFFO (MS), J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/12/2008', 'OKYERE-AGYEKU, BRIGHT', 'TSIKATA, DOE  ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-02-04', ''),
(292, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. AUTOMATED FAST TRACK HIGH COURT No. 4(ACCRA);EX-PARTE: STATE HOUSING COMPANY LTD	', '', '../links/cases/AUTOMATED_FAST_TRACK_HIGH.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BROBBEY, DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', 'WOOD,(MRS) CJ:-\r\nIn this motion to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this honourable court, the applicant prays for an order of certiorari directed at the Automated/Fast Track High Court (No 4), presided over by Her Ladyship, Mrs. Irismay Brown. The purpose is to bring up to this court and to have quashed the judgment of that court dated 20th March, 2008, granting GHC100, 000.00 to the Plaintiff (Interested Party herein) without notice to the Defendant\r\n', 'WOOD (Mrs), CJ ', 'Civil', '', 'J5/30/2008', 'DAVIES, FRANK  ', 'AIDOO, JOHN   ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-02-26', ''),
(293, 'CUSTOMS EXCISE & PREVENTIVE SERVICE vrs. NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION ', '', '../links/cases/CEPS_VRS_LABOUR_COMMISSION.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, ANSAH, ADINYIRA, DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH', '2009', 'supreme', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C:\r\n\r\nThe facts of this case have been related by my brother Dotse, J.S.C. and I would not repeat them except where necessary.\r\n\r\nThe plaintiff claims before us per its writ of summons as follows:\r\n\r\n“1.	A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of the Labour Act 2003 (Act 651), particularly s.1, the application or the purported application of the said Act to cover the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) as established by law is inconsistent ', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J1/5/2007', 'YANKSON, FIIFI', 'AMIHERE, EFIBA ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-02-04', ''),
(294, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. THE HIGH COURT, COMMERCIAL DIVISION, ACCRA\r\n', '', '../links/cases/Ex_parte_Millicom_Ghana.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, ANSAH, OWUSU, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', 'ATUGUBA, JSC.: The facts of this case have been related by my learned sister and brother Rose Owusu and Baffoe-Bonnie JJSC respectively. I would not repeat them except where necessary.  The legal issues that arose in this case are:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n(a) whether the trial High Court was right to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the applicants, the directors and officers of the first applicant company, who failed to appear in court pursuant to service of committal process on the  company;\r\n', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J5/43/2008', 'NARTEY, TETTEH ', 'ANDOH, ENOH-AMAH ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-02-04', ''),
(295, 'GABRIEL KWAO BOSO vrs. THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/Gabriel_Bosso_CJ.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BROBBEY, ANSAH, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', 'WOOD, (MRS) CJ:-\r\n\r\nBrief Facts:\r\n\r\nOn the 21st of January, 2009, we affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal which substituted the appellant’s murder conviction for manslaughter. Furthermore, we enhanced the sentence of 15 years imposed on him to 21 years with hard labour and reserved our reasons. We now assign our reasons for those decisions that we took. \r\n', 'WOOD (Mrs), CJ ', 'Civil', '', 'J3/2/2007', 'ADJEI, DENNIS SIR', 'AMPONSAH, MATTHEW', 'Supreme Court', '2009-02-04', ''),
(296, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. THE HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA\r\n', '', '../links/cases/HIGH_COURT_KOFORIDUA_EX-PARTE_WILLIAM_K_A_OTU.pdf', 'Yes', 'BROBBEY, ANSAH, ADINYIRA, DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH', '2009', 'supreme', 'ANSAH, J.S.C. :\r\n\r\nThe applicants herein applied to this court, pursuant to article 132 of the 1992 Constitution, for an order of certiorari directed at the High Court, Koforidua presided over by Anyimiah J, to quash a ruling by the said court dated 12 June 2008 in Suit No E149/2008 intituled Koans  Building Solutions Ltd  v William Ansah-Otu & Another. The ground for the application was that: “There was an error of law apparent on the face of the record.” \r\n\r\n', 'BROBBEY, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J5/41/2008', 'ASAMOAH, SOMUAH ', 'ANDOH, ENOH-AMAH ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-02-11', ''),
(297, 'MADAM MASH AGBESHIE, MR RICHARD AGBESHIE\r\n vrs. MADAM AMINA AMORKOR,FOFO RUKYEA LARYEA\r\n', '', '../links/cases/MADAM_MASH_AGBESHIE.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BROBBEY, ANSAH, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', 'ANSAH, JSC:-\r\nThe issues in this appeal are very narrow indeed and may briefly be stated as entered on whether the plaintiff bought the whole of the disputed house or only its frontage.\r\nBefore deciding on the merits of the appeal, the facts of the case must be stated first. They were that the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for\r\na.	A declaration of title to the property H/No. 49E/12, Nima, Accra,\r\nb.	Recovery of possession of the said H/No 49/E12, Nima , Accra.\r\n', 'WOOD (MRS), C J ', 'Civil', '', 'J4/35/2007', 'PWAMANG, GARBRIEL ', 'SENANU, KWABLA ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-02-11', ''),
(298, 'NANA AMA AMPONSAH vrs. FRANKLYN AMOAH NYAMAAH', '', '../links/cases/NANA_AMA_AMPONSAH_V_FRANKLYN_AMOAH_NYAMAAH.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BROBBEY, ANSAH, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', 'BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C:-\r\nNana Ama Amponsah, (Respondent herein), was married to Franklyn Amoah Nyamaah, (Appellant herein) under Akan Customary law in 1991.  They have 4 children out of the marriage, 3 girls and a boy.\r\n', 'WOOD (MRS), C J ', 'Civil', '', 'J4/10/2008', 'ASANTE-KROBEA , K. A.', 'KODUAH, HANSEN KWADWO  ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-02-11', ''),
(299, 'PEKI STOOL vrs. TSITO AWUDOME STOOL', '', '../links/cases/PEKI_STOOL_VS_TSITO_AWUDOME_STOOL.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, BROBBEY, DATE-BAH, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', 'BROBBEY, JSC: \r\n\r\nThis is an interlocutory appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated the 8th day of May, 2007.\r\n\r\nThe facts relevant to this case are that, in the year 1957 Togbe Ayim Darke IV instituted legal action against Togbe Gobo Darke XI of Tsito and one Ntow Peniana, a subject of Tsito, in the Peki Native Court for a declaration of title and damages for trespass to parcels of land known as Awaline Avagah and Tiame. The case was transferred to the High Court, Ho, presided over by Francois J. ', 'WOOD (MRS), C J ', 'Civil', '', 'J4/14/2008', 'AHENKORAH, JAMES ', 'ASAMOAH, SOMUAH ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-02-26', ''),
(301, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. HIGH COURT, FAST TRACK 2, 	\r\n', '', '../links/cases/REPUBLIC_V_HIGH_COURT_FAST_TRACK_2_ GH_LOTTO_OPERATORS.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, DATE-BAH, ANSAH, ADINYIRA, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C:\r\n\r\nI agree with the Ruling of my able brother Dr. Date-Bah J.S.C.  However I find it necessary to express my views on certain aspects of t his case.\r\n\r\nThe first is the ambit of the power of transfer of cases given to the Chief Justice under S.104(1) – (3) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), as amended.\r\n', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J5/7/2009', 'BEYUO, KIZITO ', 'AWUKU, AURELIUS  ', 'Supreme Court', '2009-02-11', ''),
(302, 'EDMUND ASANTE – APPIAH VRS MADAM KATE AMPONSAH ALIAS YAA MANSAH', '', '../links/cases/EDMUND ASANTE APPIAH V.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKUFFO, BROBBEY, DATE-BAH, ANSAH, ASIAMAH', '2008', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BROBBEY, J.S.C&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>BROBBEY JSC:</A>\r\nThis is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal which allowed an appeal\r\nagainst the decision of the High Court sitting at Koforidua. The facts which gave rise\r\nto the litigation before this court are as follows: The plaintiff who shall hereafter be\r\nreferred to as the appellant claimed that he alone bought the subject matter of the\r\ncase which is a house together with an adjoining plot, both of which are situated at\r\nApedwa. ', 'AKUFFO (MS), J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'CA J4/34/2007', 'ASANTE-ANSONG', 'AMOAKO-ADJEI', 'Supreme Court', '2008-11-20', ''),
(303, 'DANIEL SACKEY QUARCOOPOME VRS SANYO ELECTRIC TRADING & ANOR.', '', '../links/cases/QUARCOOPOME V SANYO ELECTRICAL TRADING CO._COMP_.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKUFFO ,BROBBEY ,ANSAH ,ADINYIRA, ASIAMAH', '2008', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=Ansah, J.S.C&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ANSAH, JSC:</a>\r\nThis is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated the 1st day of\r\nMarch, 2007, dismissing the appeal by the appellant, hereafter called the plaintiff\r\nagainst the decision of the High Court dated 25th October, 2004.\r\nThe plaintiff, was a Director on the Board of Directors of the 2nd Defendant between\r\n1974 and 2001.', 'AKUFFO (MS), J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/3/2008', 'KOCUVIE TAY', 'ADAWUDU', 'Supreme Court', '2008-11-12', ''),
(304, 'THE REPUBLIC\r\nVERSUS\r\nTHE HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ACCRA, AMPOMAH PHOTO LAB LTD & 3 ORS.', '', '../links/cases/The Republic v The Trust Bank _COMP_.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA ,DATE-BAH ,ANSAH ,ADINYIRA , BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2008', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DATE-BAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DR. DATE-BAH JSC:</a>\r\nThe Facts\r\nWhat is in issue in this suit is the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear a fresh\r\naction challenging an aspect of a consent judgment entered by a court of\r\ncoordinate jurisdiction. The applicant bank brought action in the Commercial\r\nDivision of the High Court against the interested parties in this suit in respect\r\nof a loan transaction.', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Criminal', '', 'J5/23/2008', 'REBECCA BOAKYE', 'EBOW BROWN', 'Supreme Court', '2008-11-12', ''),
(305, 'KOWUS MOTORS VRS CHECK POINT GH. LTD. 7 ORS', '', '../links/cases/Kowus Motors Vrs Check Point Gh. Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, DATE-BAH, ANSAH, ADINYIRA, DOTSE', '2008', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ATUGUBA, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ATUGUBA, J.S.C:</a>\r\nOn the 1st day of April 2008 the Defendants / Respondents herein filed an\r\nAddendum to their Statement of Case in the following terms, as far as\r\nrelevant; “We seek to raise a fundamental point of law concerning the locus\r\nstandi of the Plaintiff / Appellant. We submit that this legal question is\r\nsubstantial and could be disposed off without the need for any evidence.', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/32/07', 'AMEGATCHER', 'BROOKMAN-AMISSAH(', 'Supreme Court', '2008-10-05', ''),
(306, 'THE REPUBLIC VRS\r\nTHE HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA, NANA OTUTU KONO III, AKUAPEM TRADITIONAL COUNCIL', '', '../links/cases/The Rep. vs High Court, Koforidua, Ex parte Nana Otutu Kono (2)(COMP).pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD, ATUGUBA, OWUSU,  DOTSE, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2008', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=WOOD, J.S.C&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>GEORGINA WOOD CJ</a>:\r\nI have had the opportunity to read the opinions of my respected brothers and\r\nsister in this matter. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the majority views\r\nexpressed by my respected brethren. To the contrary, I am inclined to agree\r\nwith the opinion of my brother Dotse JSC. Consequently, it would in my view,\r\nbe helpful if I briefly stated my reasons for allowing this application which\r\nseeks to invoke the supervisory', 'WOOD (MRS), C.J', 'Civil', '', 'J5/9/2008', 'AMARTEIFIO', 'AMOAKO ADJEI', 'Supreme Court', '2008-10-22', ''),
(307, 'GEORGINA NAA AHINEY AMARTEY  VRS MRS.\r\nWINIFRED IDDRISU ..', '', '../links/cases/Georgina Naa Ahiney Amartey vrs Winifred _comp_.pdf', 'Yes', 'DATE-BAH, ANSAH, ADINYIRA, DOTSE, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DOTSE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DOTSE , J.S.C:</a>\r\nThis is an appeal by the Defendant/Respondent /Appellant, hereinafter referred to as\r\nthe Defendant, against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated November 26,\r\n2006 wherein judgment was given in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent,\r\nhereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff instituted action in the High\r\nCourt, Accra on May 26, 2000 against the Defendant,', 'DATE-BAH, J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/26/2007', 'AHENKORAH', 'TETTEY', 'Supreme Court', '2009-04-29', ''),
(308, 'THE REPUBLIC VRS THE HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA EX-PARTE: AUGUSTUS OSAE-AKONNOR, SAMUEL AGYEI', '', '../links/cases/REP. V. THE HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA, EX-PARTE A.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, AKUFFO, ANSAH, OWUSU, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=OWUSU, J.S.C.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>OWUSU (MS), J.S.C.:</a>-\r\nThe Interested Party in this application issued a writ of summons in the Respondent’s\r\ncourt, Koforidua for the reliefs endorsed thereon as follows:\r\ni. “An order directing the Defendant to return Mercedes Benz S.500 with Chassis\r\nNo. WDBNG84J5A460855 and BMW 745 LI with Chassis No. WBAGN6356DS56067\r\nor their market value of US$186,000.”\r\nii.', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J5/15/09', 'ANDOH', 'AMOAKO ADJEI', 'Supreme Court', '2009-04-22', ''),
(309, 'SUMAILA SANUNU VRS FRANKLIN GADO SALIFU', '', '../links/cases/Senunu v.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, AKUFFO, DATE-BAH, OWUSU, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BAFFOE-BONNIE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>BAFFOE-BONNIE, J. S. C:</a>-\r\nThe Defendant/Appellant,(Appellant herein) a contractor, was awarded a contract by\r\nGhana Telecom to build Payphone Shelters and Telephone Stand structures in the Wa\r\nDistrict. ', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J4/13/08', 'SOMUAH ASAMOAH', 'AMADU MUMUNI', 'Supreme Courr', '2009-04-22', ''),
(310, 'THE REPUBLIC VRS THE HIGH COURT JUDGE, SUNYANI; EX PARTE: ALHAJI COLLINS DAUDA, YIADOM BOAKYE BOATENG ', '', '../links/cases/THE REP. VS. HIGH COURT JUDGE, SUNYANI. EX-PARTE COLLINS DAUDA.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, AKUFFO(Ms), DATE-BAH, OWUSU (Ms),, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DATE-BAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DR. DATE-BAH J.S.C:</a>- UNANIMOUS RULING\r\nThis case raises an important issue of jurisdiction in relation to election petitions.\r\nIt is this: does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain any election petition\r\nunder the Representation of the People Law 1992 (PNDCL 284) before the\r\nElectoral Commission has declared the results of that election?', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J5/12/2009', 'CODJOE, LITHUR', 'QUASHIE, EFFAH-DARTEY', 'Supreme Court', '2009-04-08', ''),
(311, 'THE REPUBLIC VRS NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, EX-PARTE: ODENEHO AKROFA KRUKOKO II, OSAGYEFO KWAMENA ENIMIL VI ', '', '../links/cases/REPUBLIC V NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, EX PARTE KRUKOKO II _C0MP_.pdf', 'Yes', 'DATE BAH, OWUSU (MS), DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ADJABENG, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DR. DATE-BAH JSC:</a>-\r\nWhat is before this Court is an appeal from proceedings that were initiated by an\r\nex parte motion for leave to apply for an order of mandamus which was heard at\r\nthe High Court, Kumasi. The motion was filed on 6th September 2004 and it\r\n2\r\nsought liberty to apply for an order of mandamus requiring the respondent,\r\nnamely the National House of Chiefs:\r\n“(1) to delete from the National Register of Chiefs the name and\r\nparticulars of Osagyefo Kwamena Enimil VI as Omanhene of the\r\nWassa Fiase Traditional Area, And', 'DATE BAH, J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/18/2009', 'ADUMUA BOSSMAN', 'AGYEI, AMOAH-SEKYI', 'Supreme Court', '2009-12-02', ''),
(312, 'GLADYS AKU AGBENU VRS IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT AGBENU(DECEASED) AND IN THE MATTER OF GODWIN\r\nAGBENU\r\n', '', '../links/cases/Gladys Agbenu vs Godwin Agbenu _COMP.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, AKUFFO (MS), ANSAH, OWUSU (MS), BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', '', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ATUGUBA, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ATUGUBA JSC</a>:\r\nThis is an appeal by special leave of this court from the judgment of the Court\r\nof Appeal reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court; Accra presided over by\r\nHis Honour Judge G.K.Minta\r\n2\r\nThe facts of the case as stated by the Court of Appeal per Quaye J.A. are as\r\nfollows:', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/26/2008', 'ASAMOAH', 'ANTHONIO', 'Supreme Court', '2009-06-14', ''),
(313, 'THE REPUBLIC VRS HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA;\r\nEX PARTE: DR KOFI ASARE AND 3 Others\r\nTHE ELECTORAL COMMISSION\r\n\r\n', '', '../links/cases/THE REP VRS HIGH COURT,KOFORIDUA.EX-PARTE;DR.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, ANSAH,  OWUSU (MS), DOTSE, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ATUGUBA, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ATUGUBA,JSC:</a>\r\nThe Applicant was the New Patriotic Party Parliamentary candidate for the\r\nAkwatia constituency in the Eastern Region in the December 2008\r\nParliamentary Elections.\r\n', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C:', 'Civil', '', 'J5/23/2009', 'AMOAKO ADJEI', 'TONY LITHUR', 'Supreme Court', '2009-07-15', ''),
(314, 'THE REPUBLIC VRS HIGH COURT, FAST TRACK 1, ACCRA; EX-PARTE: NATIONAL LOTTERY ', '', '../links/cases/REP. VRS. FAST. TRACK 1, EXP NL.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, DATE-BAH, ANSAH, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ADJABENG, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ATUGUBA, JSC:</a>\r\n<b>The Facts:</b>\r\nOn 13/8/2007 the interested parties, who are private lotto operators, issued a\r\nwrit in the High Court against the applicant challenging the constitutionality of\r\nthe National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722) on the grounds that it violates their\r\n2\r\nfundamental economic rights under the 1992 Constitution and claiming\r\nconsequential reliefs. The issues as to constitutionality', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J5/22/2009', 'KIZITO BEYUO', 'AURELIUS AWUKU', 'Supreme Court', '2009-07-22', ''),
(316, 'ALAN WILLIAM HODGSON vrs THE REPUBLIC\r\n', '', '../links/cases/ALAN WILLIAM HODGSON VRS. THE REP. (COMP).pdf', 'Yes', 'DATE-BAH, ADINYIRA (MRS), OWUSU (MS), DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=OWUSU, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>OWUSU (MS), JSC</a>:\r\nAlan William Hodgson, the Appellant herein, was arraigned before the High Court (Fast\r\nTrack Division) with five others on narcotic drug related offences under the Narcotic\r\nDrugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Law, P. N. D. C. L 236.', 'DATE-BAH (DR.), J.S.C', 'Criminal', '', 'J3/1/2009', 'THADDEUS SORY', 'EVELYN KEELSON', 'Supreme Court', '2009-07-15', ''),
(317, 'AMPRATWUM MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. \r\nvrs. DIVESTURE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE', '', '../links/cases/AMPRATWUM MANUFACTURING CO. V.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, AKUFFO (MS), ANSAH, DOTSE, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BAFFOE-BONNIE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>BAFFOE-BONNIE, J.S.C:</a>-\r\nThe Appellant a limited liability company involved in the business of manufacturing\r\nshoulder pads rented a purpose-built cloak room from now defunct GIHOC Footwear\r\nCompany Limited, hereinafter called the Landlord, in 1996.', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J4/2/2009', 'ASARE BEDIAKO', 'ASAKKUA AGAMBILA', 'Supreme Court', '2009-07-29', ''),
(318, 'CHAPEL HILL SCHOOL LTD. vrs. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE COMMISSIONER INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE', '', '../links/cases/CHAPEL HILL SCHOOL LTD VRS ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOR _COMP_.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, AKUFFO (MS), DATE-BAH (DR.), OWUSU (MS), BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DATE-BAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DR. DATE-BAH JSC</a>:\r\nIntroduction\r\nThe central issue in this case is the meaning to be given to the expression “educational\r\ninstitution of a public character” within the context of the Income Tax Act 1975 (SMCD\r\n5) and the Internal Revenue Act, 2000 (Act 592). Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal\r\nwrongly characterised this central issue in terms of whether the plaintiff school qualifies\r\nas a public school.', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J4/25/2009', 'JOHN MERCER', 'JONATHAN ANTWI', 'Supreme Court', '2009-07-22', ''),
(319, 'MATHEW KWAME SABBAH vrs.\r\nTHE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/MATHEW KWAME SABBAH  v REPUBLIC_COMP_.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, ANSAH, ADINYIRA (MRS), ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ADINYIRA, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>SOPHIA ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC</a>:\r\nThis appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 20 January\r\n2004 which affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant for\r\nmurder. The appellant was tried and convicted together with another person\r\nby an Accra High Court upon a verdict of a Jury on 7 August 2001, on\r\ncharges of conspiracy to commit murder and murder. ', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Criminal', '', 'J3/2/07', 'AHUMAH OCANSEY', 'THE ATTORNEY GENERAL', 'Supreme Court', '2009-07-29', ''),
(320, 'AGYENIM BOATENG & 27 ORS - vrs\r\nS. K. BOATENG - AND IN THE MATTER OF\r\nTHE REPUBLIC vrs\r\n1. S. K. BOATENG\r\n2. EVELYN AKUFFO ODURO (MRS) ;\r\nEX-PARTE: AGYENIM BOATENG & ORS - \r\n', '', '../links/cases/Ex Parte Agyenim Boateng _COMP_.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD (MRS), BROBBEY, DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DOTSE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DOTSE, JSC</a>:-\r\nBy their application before this Honourable Court, the Applicants herein, numbering about\r\n28 and acting per Agyenim-Boateng are seeking an order to commit the 1st Respondent, S.\r\nK. Boateng and ', 'WOOD (MRS), C.J', 'Civil', '', 'J8/8/2009', 'ANANE-QUEBAH', 'THADDEUS SORY', 'Supreme Court', '2009-03-04', ''),
(321, 'JUSTICE AWUKU-SAO vrs.GHANA SUPPLY COMPANY LTD', '', '../links/cases/JUSTICE AWUKU SAO VRS GH. SUPPLY COM.pdf', 'Yes', 'BROBBEY, ANSAH, ADINYIRA (MRS), DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DOTSE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ADINYIRA (MRS), J.S.C:</a>-\r\nThis is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 4 February\r\n2005 affirming an earlier judgment of the High Court Accra dated 1 March 2004\r\ndismissing the action of the plaintiff/appellant ( hereinafter plaintiff.) The grounds\r\nof appeal are:\r\n1. The Court of Appeal erred in upholding the finding made by the\r\nlearned trial judge that the comments submitted by', 'BROBBEY, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J4/15/2008', 'PETER ZWENES', 'AMOAH', 'Supreme Court', '2009-03-11', ''),
(322, 'M. N. OCANSEY VRS.\r\nMADAM GRACE TEYE & 6 ORS, TEMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DOKU AGBEYEVU ', '', '../links/cases/M.N. OCANSEY etc V MAD. GRACE TEYE & ORS.pdf', 'Yes', 'BROBBEY, DATE-BAH, ADINYIRA (MRS), DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ANIN YEBOAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ANIN YEBOAH, J.S.C</a>:-\r\nThis is an appeal against the striking out of an appeal and failure to relist same by\r\nthe Court of appeal. The facts which appear to be simple are that the appellant was\r\na Co-defendant in a case which was heard before the High Court, Tema. The\r\njudgment in the case was delivered on 11/10/2001 and the', 'BROBBEY, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J4/19/2008', 'AMUI', 'NELSON', 'Supreme Court', '2009-03-11', ''),
(323, 'PRINCE WILLIAM TAGOE vrs. ALBERT G. K. ACQUAH \r\n', '', '../links/cases/PRINCE W. TAGOE VRS. ALBERT G.K.pdf', 'Yes', 'BROBBEY, ANSAH, ADINYIRA (MRS), DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ANIN YEBOAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ANIN YEBOAH, J.S.C.</a>:-\r\nThe Circuit Court at Tema on the 12th of December 2006 entered judgment against\r\nthe appellant herein in favour of the Respondent herein to recover all rent arrears\r\nand ejectment from the house in dispute which is H/&#8470; 12/N2 C2 situate at Tema.\r\nIt was the case of the respondent that he owned the property in dispute and leased\r\nsame to the appellant for an agreed rent. According to the Appellant, the\r\nrespondent ceased paying rent in 1999.', 'BROBBEY, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J4/24/2008', 'OSAFO BUABENG', 'KWAME AYEH', 'Supreme Court', '2009-03-11', '');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(324, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs HIGH COURT, COMMERCIAL DIVISION ACCRA;\r\nEX PARTE: DOUBLE CROWN INVESTMENT LTD.,\r\nGRANADA HOTEL LTD.\r\n', '', '../links/cases/THE REPUBLIC V. HIGH COURT- COM.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD (MRS), BROBBEY, DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ANIN YEBOAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ANIN YEBOAH, JSC</a>:-\r\nThe applicant herein is by this application invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this\r\ncourt to quash an order of the High Court, commercial Division, Accra, dated the\r\n30/10/08. The facts leading to this application do not appear to be in controversy and\r\ncould be deduced from the exhibits and the affidavits filed in this application. The\r\napplicant was a defendant in', 'WOOD (MRS), C.J', 'Civil', '', 'J5/3/2009', 'CHARLES HAYIBOR', 'ANNANCY', 'Supreme Court', '2009-03-11', ''),
(325, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs THE HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST; EX PARTE: GHANA COCOA BOARD, NANA KWAKU APOTOI II\r\n', '', '../links/cases/The Rupublic Vrs. H.C. Cape Coast, Cocoa Board ors.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, DATE-BAH (DR.), ANSAH, OWUSU (MS), ANIN YEBOAH', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ATUGUBA, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ATUGUBA, J.S.C:</a>\r\nThe facts of this matter have been masterly related by my able brother Dr.\r\nDate-Bah J.S.C. and I would repeat them only where necessary.\r\nThis application is “for an Order of Certiorari to quash the decisions of the High\r\nCourt, Cape Coast, presided over by His Lordship V.G.K AYIMEY given on the\r\n10th September, 2008 and 17th September, 2008 in the matter NANA KWAKU', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J5/5/2009', 'AKWASI OPOKU', 'GUSTAV ADDINGTON', 'Supreme Court', '2009-03-11', ''),
(326, 'NII PAUL AYITEY TETTEH, TETTEH QUARCOO vrs B.A. QUARCOO, JAFRO MENSAH LARKAI \r\n', '', '../links/cases/NII PAUL TETTEH v B. A.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, DATE-BAH (DR.), ANSAH, ADINYIRA(MRS), OWUSU (MS)', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ATUGUBA, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ATUGUBA J.S.C</a>.:-\r\nIn this consolidated suit the plaintiff in the first suit no. F2453/2002 sued as per the\r\nindorsement on the writ “for HIMSELF AND AS THE HEAD OF ONAMROKO ADAIN\r\nFAMILY HOUSE NO. 146 AVENOR – ACCRA\r\nV.\r\n1. B.A. QUARCOO H/NO. 24 OKATEI - NETTEY\r\nSTREET, KORLE WORKO – ACCRA\r\n2. JAFRO LARKAI\r\nH/NO. 23 DOMIABRA STREET\r\nKOTOBABI – ACCRA”\r\nClaiming\r\n“a. Declaration that the Plaintiff has been Head of Family of Onamrokor Adain\r\nfamily since 1994 and has remained same to date.\r\nb. Perpetual injunction against the Defendants, from upholding themselves as\r\nHead and Assistant Head of the Onamrokor – Adain family.\r\nc. Declaration that by the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 16/12/80 the\r\nDefendant is estopped from ever contesting the Headship of the family of\r\nOnamrokor – Adain.', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J4/22/2008', 'JAMES AHENKORAH', 'NATHANIEL MYERS', 'Supreme Court', '2009-05-06', ''),
(327, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. THE HIGH COURT, SEKONDI; EX-PARTE: NICHOLAS BERNARD ASARE, DR. K. DUFFOUR', '', '../links/cases/THE REP. VRS. M. B. ASARE EX;PARTE DR. K.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, ADINYIRA (MRS), OWUSU (Ms), ANIN-YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', 'Applicant present.\r\nEbow Awotwi represents Interested Party.\r\nJoseph Nicholas Nkrumah (with Festus Owusu Baidoo) for applicant.\r\nThaddeus Sory for Interested Party.\r\nBY COURT:\r\nUpon this application coming up at the last sitting Thaddeus Sory for the\r\ninterested party reiterated his careful and interesting submissions as to the\r\ncomputation of time for this application.', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J5/19/09', '', '', 'Supreme Court', '2009-05-20', ''),
(328, 'GHANA CABLE CO. LTD, HEAD OFFICE  vrs\r\nBARCLAYS BANK (GH.) LTD, HEAD OFFICE ACCRA', '', '../links/cases/ghana cable vrs.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, ANSAH, OWUSU (MS), ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ATUGUBA, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ATUGUBA, JSC</A>:-\r\nThe Plaintiff per its Writ of Summons against the defendant claimed the following:\r\n“ a.) Plaintiff Company’s claim against defendant is for damages for the total collapse of\r\nthe plaintiff company’s business, loss of good will loss of profits resulting from\r\nbreach of contract by defendant for unlawfully withdrawing credit facilities for\r\nplaintiff company under credit facility agreement for making funds available for\r\nplaintiff company for importation of much needed machinery and equipment,\r\nspare parts appliances etc, for rehabilitation and', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J4/18/2008', 'LAMPTEY', 'CHARLES HAYIBOR', 'Supreme Court', '2009-11-25', ''),
(329, 'JOHN K. A KLU vrs  MAVIS DARKO, DR. KOFI KONADU APRAKU .. \r\n', '', '../links/cases/John Klu Vrs.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, ANSAH, ADINYIRA (MRS), OWUSU (MS), BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ATUGUBA, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ATUGUBA, J.S.C:</a>\r\nFACTS OF THE CASE\r\nThe Plaintiff / Respondent / Appellant (herein-after referred to as the plaintiff) and codefendant/\r\nappellant/respondent (herein-after called the co-defendant) assert rival titles to\r\nplot no. 234 block 8 Section 114 situate at La-Bawaleshi (East Legon).', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J4/15/2007', 'CHARLES HAYIBOR', 'KULENDI', 'Supreme Court', '2009-11-25', ''),
(330, 'KWAME BONSU - Head of Nana Ama Serwah family Nsuase, Adum\r\nvrs. KWAME KUSI, GIFTY KUSI AMPOFOWAA\r\n\r\n', '', '../links/cases/Kwame Bonsu v Kwame Kusi _COMP_.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD (MRS), ANSAH, DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=WOOD, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>WOOD (MRS), C.J.</a>:\r\nOn the 4th of November 2009, by a majority decision of three to two,\r\nGeorgina Wood CJ, Ansah and Dotse JSC, dismissed the appeal against the\r\njudgment of the Court of Appeal, and reserved our reasons. We now assign\r\nour reasons for our decision to affirm the judgment of the court below.', 'WOOD (MRS), C.J', 'Civil', '', 'J4/14/2009', 'KWAMI TETTEH', 'GYANG OWUSU', 'Supreme Court', '2009-11-04', ''),
(331, 'NANA ADWOA EFFIA, GODFRED KWOFIE(for and on behalf of the Royal Sewuah Paramount Stool Family of Bamiankor, Bamiankor) vrs.NANA TAIBA II, OPANIN AMOS ASARE, NANA APENU KPANYILY, HENRY ACQUAH a.k.a. Angama \r\n', '', '../links/cases/NANA ADWOA EFIA AND ANO. VRS.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD (MRS), ANSAH, DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=WOOD, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>WOOD (MRS) C.J.</a>:\r\nOn the 25th of October, 2007, the Judicial Committee of the National House of\r\nChiefs dismissed the appeal from the adjudicating body of the Western Regional\r\nHouse of Chiefs, that is’ the Judicial Committee of the House. Dissatisfied, the\r\npetitioners/ appellants are, by way of an appeal to this court, challenging the\r\nsaid decision on the following grounds:', 'WOOD (MRS), C.J', 'Civil', '', 'J2/1/2009', 'DENNIS ADJEI', 'DAWSON', 'Supreme Court', '2009-11-04', ''),
(332, 'PETER EGYIN MENSAH, GEORGE KWAMINA SEY vrs.\r\nINTERCONTINENTAL BANK (GH) LIMITED ... \r\n', '', '../links/cases/Peter E.pdf', 'Yes', 'DATE-BAH, ANSAH, ADINYIRA (MRS), OWUSU (MS), BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ADINYIRA, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>SOPHIA ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC</a>:\r\nThis an appeal against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 6 November 2008\r\nallowing an appeal against the judgement of the High Court (Commercial Division)\r\nAccra dated 27 July 2007 on the sole ground of estoppel by res judicata. In order to\r\nappreciate fully the issues raised for determination in this appeal we must look at the history of the whole litigation.\r\n', 'DATE-BAH (DR.), J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/13/2009', 'VICTOR AZAMETI', 'LITHUR BREW', 'Supreme Court', '2009-11-25', ''),
(333, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs. NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS,\r\nEX-PARTE: ODENEHO AKROFA KRUKOKO II, OSAGYEFO KWAMENA ENIMIL VI \r\n\r\n', '', '../links/cases/REPUBLIC V NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFSEX PARTE KRUKOKO II _C0MP_.pdf', 'Yes', 'DATE-BAH, OWUSU (MS), DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DATE-BAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DR. DATE-BAH JSC</a>:-\r\nWhat is before this Court is an appeal from proceedings that were initiated by an\r\nex parte motion for leave to apply for an order of mandamus which was heard at\r\nthe High Court, Kumasi. The motion was filed on 6th September 2004 and it\r\n2\r\nsought liberty to apply for an order of mandamus requiring the respondent,\r\nnamely the National House of Chiefs:', 'DATE-BAH (DR.), J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/18/2009', 'ADUMUA BOSSMAN', 'DENNIS AGYEI', 'Supreme Court', '2009-11-02', ''),
(334, 'NANA KOFI ANTWI vrs. CHIEF AYENSUAKO/OSIMPO\r\nEDJOA ADEFEY STOOL OF AWUTU BEREKU TRADITIONAL AREA\r\nvrs KOBINA ABBEY AND 2 ORS\r\n\r\n', '', '../links/cases/NANA KOFI ANTWI V KOBINA ABBEY 2 ORS _COMP_.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD (MRS), ANSAH, DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2009', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ANSAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ANSAH, J.S.C.</a>\r\nThe plaintiff sued the defendants in the High Court, Agona Swedru, for\r\n(a) a declaration of title and recovery of possession of a piece or parcel of land situate\r\nlying and being at a place commonly known and called Ayensuako and bounded as\r\nfollows on the North by Kwa-Baa, Kobina Dadzie, Okuta and Ayensuako stream', 'WOOD (MRS), C.J', 'Civil', '', 'J4/10/2009', 'CHARLES HAYIBOR', 'AKWASI OPOKU', 'Supreme Court', '2009-10-28', ''),
(335, 'ASHIE NEEQUAYE vrs. ADEE KOTEY', '', '../links/cases/ADEE KOTEY VERSUS ASHIE NEEQUAYE _COMP_.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKUFFO (MS), ADINYIRA (MRS), OWUSU (MS), BAFFOE-BONNIE, ARYEETEY', '2010', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BAFFOE-BONNIE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC:</a>-\r\nThe PL/RESP/RESP (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff), originally instituted this action\r\nclaiming among others:\r\n(a) A declaration that the original house number 160 was allocated to Moses\r\nNeequaye which house was later exchanged for plot 218 renumbered F.793a/2\r\nand 801/2 East Christianborg Osu and same formed part of his estate.', 'AKUFFO (MS), J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/26/2009', 'BRIGHT AKWETEY', 'EKOW DANIELS', 'Supreme Court', '2010-02-10', ''),
(336, 'ELLIS TAMAKLOE vrs THE REPUBLIC \r\n', '', '../links/cases/Ellis Tamakloe v The Republic _COMP_.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, ANSAH, ADINYIRA (MRS), BAFFOE-BONNIE, ARYEETEY', '2010', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ANSAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ANSAH, J.S.C.</a>:\r\nEach accused was charged with and convicted for the offences of:\r\n“COUNT ONE\r\nSTATEMENT OF OFFENCE.\r\nAttempted exportation of Narcotic Drugs without lawful authority contrary to\r\nSections 56 (a) and 1(1) of the (Narcotic Drugs Control enforcement and\r\nSanctions) Law, PNDCL 236.\r\n2\r\n2\r\nPARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.\r\n1 ROGER OCLOO 2 ELLIS TAMAKLOE on or about 29th August 2006 at the DHL\r\nOffice, Kanda in Accra, in the Greater Accra Region did attempt out of Ghana\r\nwithout any licence issued by the Minister of Health, a quantity of Cannabis\r\nSativa a Narcotic Drug, weighing 695g.\r\nCOUNT TWO\r\nSTATEMENT OF OFFENCE\r\nPossession of Narcotic Drugs without lawful authority contrary to Section 2 of the\r\nNarcotic Drugs (Control Enforcement and Sanctions) Law, 1990, PNDCL) 236.\r\nPARTICULARS OF OFFENCE\r\n1 ROGER OCLOO, 2 ELLIS TAMAKLOE, on or about the 29th August 2006 in Accra\r\nin the Greater Accra Region, without lawful authority, did have in your\r\npossession and under your control a quantity of Cannabis Sativa, a Narcotic\r\nDrug weighing 695 g.”\r\nThe accused were found guilty on both counts, convicted and sentenced to the\r\nminimum 10 years jail term on each count to run concurrently.', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Criminal', '', 'J3/2/2009', 'NENE AMEGATCHER', 'VALARIE AMARTEY', 'Supreme Court', '2010-02-17', ''),
(337, 'EMMANUEL ROCKSON\r\nvrs. ILIOS SHIPPING COMPANY S.A., WILTEX LTD., BLACK STAR LINE BUILDING TAKORADI', '', '../links/cases/EMMANUEL ROCKSON VRS. ILIOS SHIPPING & ANOR.pdf.', 'Yes', 'AKUFFO (MS), DATE-BAH, ANSAH, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2010', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=BADDOO, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DR. DATE-BAH, JSC</a>:\r\nOn the 4th of July 2003, the plaintiff mariner filed a writ at the High Court, Sekondi,\r\nendorsed with the following claim:\r\n2\r\n“i) Order that the Cyprus affiliate F T PAW, settles the Plaintiff’s\r\nclaim per the Collective Insurance Policy of International Transport\r\nWorkers Federation (I.T.W.F.)\r\nii) 35% Interest on the sum payable from 1st November 2001 to\r\ndate of payment.”', 'AKUFFO (MS), J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/13/2007', 'EBOW QUASHIE', 'JOHN MERCER', 'Supreme Court', '2010-02-10', ''),
(338, 'ASSEMBLIES OF GOD CHURCH, GHANA \r\nHEAD QUARTERS BUILDING vrs.\r\nREV. RANSFORD OBENG, JOSEPH OPOKU, C. K. ACOLATSE,  R. K. OWUSU, C. O. KPODO\r\n\r\n', '', '../links/cases/JUDGMENT -ASSEMBLIES OF GHANA VRS RANSFORD OBENG _COMP_.pdf', 'Yes', 'DATE-BAH, ADINYIRA (MRS), OWUSU (MS), DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH', '2010', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DOTSE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DOTSE, JSC</a>:\r\nThe fact, that, this case, concerning a reputable House of God and others also\r\nreputed to be very outstanding and charismatic men of God has come to the\r\nlitigation altar of the civil Courts and made to travel all the way from the High\r\nCourt, through the Court of Appeal, to this Court is indeed a sad reflection on\r\nChristendom.\r\nIn this respect therefore, we would want to reflect on the following two\r\nquotations as we journey through this exercise to resolve the final victor in the\r\nsight of men.', 'DATE-BAH (DR.), J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/7/2009', 'DERY & CO.', 'KWAME A. BOAFO', 'Supreme Court', '2010-02-03', ''),
(339, 'NII ODAI AYIKU IV vrs THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, AND WOR-NII BORTELABI BORKETEY, LAWEH XIV \r\n', '', '../links/cases/NII ODAI AYIKU IV VRS THE ATTORNEY GENERALANOR.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, ANSAH, ADINYIRA (MRS), OWUSU (MS), ARYEETEY', '2010', 'supreme', 'OWUSU (MS), JSC:-\r\nThis appeal touches on the Jurisdiction of the High Court with regard to the reliefs\r\nclaimed by the Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant on his writ of summons issued on 2nd day of\r\nMarch 2001.\r\n\r\nBy the writ of summons the plaintiff who described himself in the statement of claim as\r\nthe “Mantse” of Nungua in the Ga Traditional ', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J4/16/2009', 'THADDEUS SORY', 'AYIKOI OTOO', 'Supreme Court', '2010-02-17', ''),
(340, 'NOVA COMPLEX LIMITED vrs GHANA PORT & HARBOURS AUTHORITY ', '', '../links/cases/NOVA COMPLREX VRS GHANA PORTS HARBOURS _COMP_.pdf', 'Yes', 'DATE-BAH, ADINYIRA (MRS), DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE', '2010', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DATE-BAH, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DR. DATE-BAH, J.S.C</a>:\r\nThis is the unanimous judgment of the Court.\r\nFACTS\r\nThis case relates to a dispute about the amount of interest due from a judgment-debtor to a\r\njudgment creditor.\r\nThe respondent in this case filed a motion ex parte on 16th July 2007 for a garnishee order\r\nnisi directed at banks where the appellant has accounts. In her affidavit in support of this\r\nmotion, the Managing-Director of the respondent deposed to the fact that t', 'DATE-BAH (DR.), J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/24/2009', 'TETTEH & CO.', 'GOKA', 'Supreme Court', '2010-01-27', ''),
(341, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)\r\nEX-PARTE: DR. KWABENA APPENTENG AND 3 ORS', '', '../links/cases/The Republic V High Court, Com.Div. Ex-parte Dr.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATUGUBA, ANSAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE, ARYEETEY, GBADEGBE,', '2010', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=ATUGUBA, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>ATUGUBA, JSC</a>:-\r\nBriefly stated, the facts of this case are as follows. The applicant until recently, one of\r\nthe executors of the will of the late Samuel Christian Appenteng, on 18/4/2008\r\nobtained, in a chain of steps, leave for the issue of a writ of possession, in respect of\r\none of the properties of the estate of the said testator. However the purported\r\nexecution of this writ was obstructed by the interested parties herein. The applicant\r\n', 'ATUGUBA, J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', 'J5/6/09', 'SAM OKUDZETO', 'OPOKU ADJAYE', 'Supreme Court', '2010-02-03', ''),
(342, 'THE REPUBLIC vrs THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA;\r\nEX-PARTE: WILLIAM ADDAE-ATCHEWEREBUO, OSEI AMANKWAH AND ORS', '', '../links/cases/THE REPUBLIC VRS THE HIGH COURT ACCRA EX-PARTE.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD (MRS), ANSAH, OWUSU (MS),  DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH', '2010', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=DOTSE, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>DOTSE, J.S.C</a>:-\r\nOn the 15th day of June, 2009, the Applicants herein, describing themselves variously as\r\nthe elected Assembly members for the Tepo, Tepa-Manya, Akposo-Kabo and Bowiri\r\nAmanfrom electoral areas in the Jasikan District of the Volta Region of the Republic of\r\nGhana respectively, brought the instant application seeking to invoke the supervisory\r\njurisdiction of the Supreme Court for certiorari and prohibition directed at the High\r\nCourt Accra then', 'WOOD (MRS), C.J', 'Civil', '', 'J5/26/09', 'JOHN A. NDEBUGRE', 'AKWASI BOSOMPEM', 'Supreme Court', '2010-02-11', ''),
(343, 'WILLIAM BROWN vrs.  ATTORNEY-GENERAL, MINISTER OF FINANCE, CONTROLLER & ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL\r\n\r\n', '', '../links/cases/WILLIAM BROWN VRS THE REPUBLIC _COMP_.pdf', 'Yes', 'WOOD (MRS), DATE-BAH, OWUSU (MS),  DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH', '2010', 'supreme', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=WOOD, J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>WOOD (MRS), CJ:</a>-\r\nOn the 7th August 2009 the plaintiff, William Brown, instituted these proceedings\r\ninvoking the original jurisdiction of this court, in his dual capacity. First, as a\r\nconcerned citizen of Ghana, pursuant to article 2(1) (b) of the 1992 constitution,', 'WOOD (MRS), C.J', 'Civil', '', 'J1/1/2009', 'KWABENA ANTWI', 'SYLVIA ADUSU', 'Supreme Court', '2010-02-03', ''),
(344, 'Tema Oil Refinery Vrs. African Automobile Ltd	\r\n', '', '../links/cases/African Automobile Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, YAW APPAU, DOTSE OFOE', '2010', 'appeal', '<a href="findrulings.php?searchval=AKAMBA,J.A.&judgementtype=Presiding Judge"  class=judge>AKAMBA, J.A</a>: The defendant/appellant (simply the appellant) is an Oil Refinery company based in Tema. Sometime in 2002, appellant invited tenders for the supply of one million, six hundred thousand litres (1,600,000 Lt) of “marine mix”.  The contract bid price was expressed in euros. Two suppliers won the contract - the plaintiff/respondents (simply respondent/s) and GOIL Limited. ', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/213/2009', 'Adjabeng Akrasi', 'Addo Atuah ', 'Court of Appeal', '2010-03-11', ''),
(345, 'Amadu Tijani Vrs. The Republic', '', '../links/cases/amadutijana_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, GYAESAYOR, BROWN', '2009', 'appeal', 'GYAESAYOR, JA: This is an appeal against the\r\n         Accra dated 1gth September, 2008. in the appeal,\r\n         seeks to have his conviction for possession narcotic material without lawful\r\n         authority set aside and the ten (10) year jail term imposed on him quashed.', 'AKOTO-BAMFO, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. 2/15/2009', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2009-11-12', ''),
(346, 'Robert Amon Kotey and Co. Vrs. The Republic', '', '../links/cases/amonKotey_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'APALOO, GYAESAYOR, ADDO', '2010', 'appeal', 'P.K. GYAESAYOR JA:  This is an Appeal for a reduction of the fourteen (14) year jail term imposed on the Appellant on the 3Oth day of July, 2002 by the Regional Tribunal, Accra for possessing narcotic drugs, contrary. to Section 1 of the Narcotic Drugs (Control,Enforcement and Sanctions) Law PNDC 1990 263. This Appeal is by Amon Kotey the 2nd accused person listed on the charge  sheet.', 'GYAESAYOR P.A., J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'No. H2/27/09', 'Cynthia', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2010-02-25', ''),
(347, 'Anglogold Ashanti vrs. George Siaw Yeboah                                        \r\n', '', '../links/cases/Anglogold_Ashanti_vs_George Siaw Yeboah.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, ACQUAYE, HONYENUGA', '2010', 'appeal', 'AKAMBA, J.A: The appellant, a mining company in Obuasi, Ghana has a subsidiary company at Sugri in the Republic of Guinea. On 10th November 1994 the respondent was employed by the erstwhile Cluff Mining Company which was later acquired by the appellant and described as its Ayanfuri mine near Obuasi Ghana. ', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'H1/162/2010', 'Nartey Tettey', 'James Agbedor', 'Court of Appeal', '2000-05-27', ''),
(348, 'LT DAVID NAAB ARATUO vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/naabAratuo_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'QUAYE, ABODAKPI, ARYENE', '2009', 'appeal', 'OUAYE,JA: The appellant herein, who was a lieutenant in the Ghana Armed Forces was tried before the General Court Martial that was constituted upon the orders of Major General A.K. ABDULAI (GH/1205) the commandant of the Military\r\nAcademy and Training School from 19th January 2006 for conduct which was alleged to be contrary to or an infringement of Section 54(1) of the Armed Forces Act 1962 (Act 105).', ' QUAYE, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', '2/2007', 'CHARLES PUOZUING', 'ISSAH ADAM', 'Court of Appeal', '2009-11-13', ''),
(349, 'BERNARD Nil OKAI TAGOE vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/okaiTagoe_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'ASARE KORANG, MARFUL-SAU, ADDO', '2010', 'appeal', 'A. ASARE KORANG, J.A.: The appellant was found guilty of the murder of one Nii Ardey Sackey by an Accra High Court presided over by Mr. Justice B.T. Aryeetey sitting with a jury on        February 1990 and his sole ground of appeal to this court from the conviction and sentence of death imposed\r\non him is that the verdict is unreasonable having regard to the evidence. It must be noted this ground\r\nof appeal was filed on 13th February 1990, a mere eleven days after the appellant had been convicted and sentenced. ', 'ASARE KORANG, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', '1/2002', 'JOSEPH AMUI', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2010-06-03', ''),
(350, 'LT(GN) S. EDMUND MENSAH vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/edmundmensah_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'QUAYE, ABODAKPI, ARYENE', '2009', 'appeal', ' The appellant herein was convicted on his own plea of guilty to three counts of offence that arose under Section 54(1) of the Armed Forces Act 1962 (Act 105) 16th March 2009. The chargespreferred against him were:\r\nCount One: An act to the. prejudice of good order and discipline which was based on allegation that he, on 13th July 2008 married a female other Rank, 194440 ABI Dosu Theresa at the Word Miracle Church International, Abelemkpe.', 'QUAYE, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', '1/2009', 'ERIC PONGO', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2009-11-09', ''),
(351, 'FELIX UGOCHUKWU OGU vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/felixogu_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'APALOO, GYAESAYOR, ADDO', '2010', 'appeal', 'ADDOH J.A.: This is an appeal for a reduction of the sentence of fifteen (15) years imposed on the appellant. The appellant, who was tried and convicted by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal for the offence of possessing Narcotic Drugs without lawful\r\n            authority contrary to section 2(1) and (2) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control Enforcement and Sanctions) Law 1990 PNDCL 236 is appealing for mitigation of sentence. The appellant from the appeal record was arrested on 26/03/2003. He was admitted to bail on stringent', 'APALOO, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'H2/6/2010', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2010-02-25', ''),
(352, 'FRANK OKE vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/frankOke_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'QUAYE, ACQUAYE,  HONYENUGAH', '2009', 'appeal', 'QUAYE, JA: The appellant, Frank Oke, was tried jointly with one Joseph Katako alias Joe, n the High Court, Ho. Both accused persons faced a common count of conspiracy to commit robbery, when the second accused person Joseph\r\nKatako alone faced the substantive charge of robbery.', 'QUAYE,  J.A.', 'Criminal', '', '2/20/2008', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2009-12-10', ''),
(354, 'LT.KELVIN GODWIN AMEGBOR (GH/2988) vrs. The Republic', '', '../links/cases/godwinAmegbor_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'QUAYE, ABODAKPI, ARYENE', '2009', 'appeal', 'ABODAKPI, J: This is an appeal against dismissal from the Ghana Armed Forces, following a conviction entered by the Court Martial against the appellant 5th June,2007.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced on two counts. The trial commenced at the GMA Cadet MESS, Teshie. It has been alleged that\r\nthe appellant was among officers who took part in Level ‘A’ Army Officers\r\nPromotion Practical Examination held at Shai Hills general area in May, 2005.', 'QUAYE, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', '1/2007', 'CHARLES PUOZUING', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2009-11-13', ''),
(353, 'FRIMPONG BADU vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/frimpongBadu_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'APALOO, GYAESAYOR, ADDO', '2010', 'appeal', 'APALOO JA; This is an appeal from the High Court, Accra where the appellant was on 25th September 2008 convicted on two counts of offences related to narcotics. The counts were (1) attempted exportation of Narcotic Drug without Licence issued by the Ministry of Health and (2) Possession of narcotic Drug without lawful Authority. Both counts were contrary to Sections 1(1) and 2(1) respectively of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Law 1990 (PNDCL 236). The Court below convicted the appellant and sentenced him to a term of 12 years IHL on each count to run concurrently.', 'APALOO, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'H2/19/2009', 'NKRABEA EFFAH DARTEH', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2010-03-04', ''),
(355, 'NO. 187484 CPL APPIAH YAW, NO. 193364 PTE MODZAKA ERIC, NO.193366 PTE GOKASETH vrs. The Republic', '', '', 'No', 'ABBAN, APPAU, ACQUAYE', '2010', 'appeal', 'ACQUAYE J.A: The Appellants were charged on two counts of conspiracy to murder contrary to Sections 23 and 46 and murder contrary to Section 46 of the Criminal Offences Act 29 of 1960. Murder is an indictable offence which Section 204 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act 30 of 1960 mandates that it be tried by a jury.', 'ABBAN(MRS), J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'H2/16/2010', 'THADDEUS SORY', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2010-04-15', ''),
(356, 'HENRY KWAKU OWUSU vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/hernykwekuosei_Vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'KANYOKE , GYAESAYOR , ADUAMA OSEI', '2010', 'appeal', 'GYAESAYORJ.A: This is an Appeal against the decision of November, 2008. In this appeal challenges his conviction and also appeals against sentence imposed on him by the Regional Tribunal.', 'KANYOKE ,  J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'H2/20/2009', 'THADDEUS SORY', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2010-05-12', ''),
(357, 'Ibrahim Razak, Kennedy Yamoah vrs. The Republic', '', '../links/cases/ibrahimRazak_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'QUAYE, ACQUAYE,  HONYENUGAH', '2009', 'appeal', 'ACQUAYE JA: This is an appeal by the two accused persons against their conviction and sentence by the Trial High Court sifting at Sekondi on 7th December 2005 on three counts of robbery. The facts of the case are that the complainants lived in three houses\r\nsituate about 100 meters apart at West Anaji in Takoradi. On 27th July 2005 at about :1.00am armed men one of whom wore a face mask attacked the', 'QUAYE, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', '2/19/2006', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2010-12-10', ''),
(358, 'LT JOSEPH ATO INSAIDOO (GH12925) vrs. The Republic', '', '../links/cases/atoInsaidoo_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'QUAYE, ABODAKPI, ARYENE', '2009', 'appeal', 'QUAYE,JA:  The appellant herein was convicted (MATS) Accra, on gth June 2007 on charges of (1)  Conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline for improper possession of notes containing Directing Staff Solutions to 2005 Practical Promotion Examination Level A examination question. Information which had not been issued to examination candidates,contrary to Section 54(1) of the Armed Forces Act 1962 (Act 105) and', 'QUAYE, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', '3/2007', 'CHARLES PUDZUING', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2009-11-03', ''),
(359, 'CAPT. DANIEL NIKYI (GH/2996) vrs. The Republic', '', '../links/cases/danielNikye_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'QUAYE, ABODAKPI, ARYENE', '2009', 'appeal', 'ABODAKPI, J: The application which triggered the preliminary objection, which is the issue before this court is entitled. MOTION ON NOTICE FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO\r\nThe motion paper showed that, applicant is praying for an order for extension\r\nof time to apply for leave to appeal. The reason assigned in support is that\r\nthe appeal stands a good chance of success.', 'QUAYE, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', '2/2009', 'DAVID VANDYIK', 'MAJOR FELIX KORBIEH', 'Court of Appeal', '2010-01-28', ''),
(360, 'GODFRED OCANSEY vrs. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/godfredocansey_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'APALOO, MARFUL SAU,  ACQUAYE', '2010', 'appeal', 'APALOO JA; In this appeal, the appellant Godfred Ocansey is seeking the\r\nreversal of his conviction by the High Court Accra dated 30/4/2009. The High\r\nCourt upon conviction sentenced the appellant to a term of 7 years IHL in\r\nrespect of Count 1 and for Count 2 he was to serve 3 years.IHL. Both sentences\r\nwere to run concurrently.', 'APALOO, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'H2/4/2010', 'GUSTAV ADDINGTON', 'GEORGE OFORI', 'Court of Appeal', '2010-04-01', ''),
(361, 'PROSPER AMESHINU vrs. THE REPUBLIC  ', '', '../links/cases/prosperAmeshinu_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'APALOO,  ACQUAYE, HONYENUGA ', '2010', 'appeal', 'APALOO, JA: In this appeal the appellant Prosper Ameshinu is seeking the reversal of his conviction by the High Court, Fast Track Division dated 22nd day of August 2006. The High Court upon conviction, sentenced the appellant\r\nto 60 years IHL on each of the two counts upon which he was charged. Both\r\nsentences were to run concurrently.\r\nThe appellant had been charged with the offences of (1) conspiracy to commit\r\nrobbery and (2) robbery contrary to section 23 (1) and 149 of the criminal\r\noffences Act, Act 29 as amended.', 'APALOO, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', 'H2/18/2010', 'PRINCE F. NII ASHIE NEEQUAY', 'EVELYN D KEELSON', 'Court of Appeal', '2010-07-22', ''),
(362, '188845 CPL ASUMAN ZAID ISSAH vrs. The Republic', '', '../links/cases/zaidIssah_vrs_republic.pdf', 'Yes', 'QUAYE, ABODAKPI, ARYENE', '2009', 'appeal', 'OUAYE,JA: The appellant was tried convicted and sentenced by a Disciplinary Court Martial conducted at Smith Mess, Southern Command Headquarters, Teshie,Accra on charges of:(1)  Conduct to the prejudice of Good order and discipline,contrary to section 54(1) of the Armed Forca Act 1962 (Act LOS);\r\n(2)  Being absent without leave, contrary to section 29 of Act 105\r\naforesaid; The third and fourth counts too were based on similar particulars as those of count two with slight but significant variations with regard to the t!me frame.', 'QUAYE, J.A.', 'Criminal', '', '4/2007', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2009-11-05', ''),
(363, 'AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE LTD.		           				   VRS.\r\n MINISTRY OF INFORMATION , ATTORNEY GENERAL	', 'OFOE, J.A: \r\nThe claim of the plaintiff that was virtually undefended at the trial court was a claim for an amount of GH¢14,174,693.12 being services rendered to the  defendant. The services were in the nature of sale and or servicing and repairs on the vehicles of the  defendant. At the close of trial there was no dispute that the claim was in respect of outstanding repair ', '../links/cases/AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2010', 'appeal', '', 'APPAU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', ' HI\\250\\2010', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2010-04-10', ''),
(364, 'LT. COL. ISAAC OWUSU TWUM-AMPOFO vrs\r\n\r\nMRS. ADELAIDE TWUM-AMPOFO   ', 'ADUAMA OSEI J.A.\r\nOn the 6th of October, 1988, the Petitioner/Appellant filed a Petition in the High Court, Accra, seeking the dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent/Respondent. In her Answer to the Petition, the Respondent/Respondent claimed to be a part owner of the ', '../links/cases/LT. COL TWUM-AMPOFO VS. A. TWUM-AMPOFO.pdf', 'Yes', 'QUAYE,MARFUL-SAU,ADUAMA OSEI     ', '2010', 'appeal', '', 'G.M. QUAYE', 'Civil', '', 'H1/21/2010', '', '', 'Court of Appeal', '2010-04-29', ''),
(365, 'NETLYNK ESTATES LTD.	 & 66 ORS, \r\nMAXWELL KOFI LARTEY			\r\nVRS.\r\n	BEATRICE ADOM & ORS	', 'Akamba J.A. \r\nThis is an application by the 29th Plaintiff/Appellant/Applicant (simply the Applicant) for an order of stay of proceedings of the suit before the High Court Land Division, Accra presided over by Aduama Osei J.A. sitting as an additional Justice of the High Court, pending an appeal against the court’s ruling of 9th March, 2010.\r\n', '../links/cases/Netlynk Estates & Ors Vrs. Beatrice Adom & Ors.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, DUOSE,  OFOE', '2010', 'appeal', '', 'AKAMBA, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H3/321/2010', 'EGBERT FAIBILLE , MARTIN ATTA BEDIAKO ', 'STANLEY AMARTEIFIO ', 'Court of Appeal', '2010-04-29', ''),
(366, 'GHANA TROPICAL TIMBER LIMITED\r\nVRS. FOREST BUSINESS CONSULTANCY and \r\nHENRY KWABENA KOKOFU', '', '../links/cases/10GHANA TROPICAL VRS FOREST BUSINESS.pdf', 'Yes', 'MRS. JUSTICE GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', '', 'MRS. JUSTICE GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Commercial', '', 'RPC/415/08', 'PADEL SUMIL KUMAR', 'NAA DEI DZANI', 'Commercial Court', '2010-04-20', ''),
(367, 'CAL BANK LIMITED\r\nVS\r\nRAD FOREST PRODUCTS CO. LTD.', '', '../links/cases/CAL BANK  VS  RAD FOREST PRODUCTS  13-4-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'At all times material to the instant action, the Defendant Company which is\r\nengaged in the export of timber and lumber products was a customer of the\r\nPlaintiff bank. Their course of dealing mainly was in the area of export bill\r\nnegotiations. Under this the Defendant upon receipt of', 'JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEIFRIMPONG.', 'Commercial', '', 'BFS/549/09', 'NATHANIEL HEGBOR', 'ISRAEL ACKAH', 'Commercial Court', '2011-04-12', ''),
(368, 'AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD.\r\nVRS PHARMADIS INTERNATIONAL LTD. and  ANTHONY HAMA', '', '../links/cases/AUROBINDO _VS_PHARMADIS_INT.pdf', 'Yes', 'JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEIFRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES AGAINST THE 1ST DEFENDANT UPON AN\r\nINTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT. \r\nThe Plaintiff’s suit which is against the two Defendants jointly and severally is\r\nfor the following reliefs:\r\na) Damages for breach of contract.\r\nb) The payment of fifty-nine thousand two hundred and fifty two Euros\r\nSeventy-six Euro cents (£59,252.76) being the outstanding amount of\r\nStocks in the Defendant’s possession.', 'JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEIFRIMPONG.', 'Commercial ', '', 'OCC/54/10', 'KAREN ADDO', 'ERNEST O. ABOAGYE', 'Commercial Court', '2011-04-18', ''),
(369, 'USICO LTD VRS\r\nVANFRED MINING SERVICE', '', '../links/cases/USICO LTD  VS  VANFRED MINING 19-5-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'The main purpose of interpleader proceedings was stated in the case of\r\nSALAMI VS. SHARANI (1973) 2 GLR 364 as follows:\r\n“The most important object of an interpleader suit was to enable the deputy\r\nsheriff against whom the claim was made and who had seized the property and\r\nwas now in possession thereof, to obtain relief and to get a decision of the\r\ncourt as regards the person to whom he had to release the property”.', 'JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Commercial', '', 'RPC/419/08', 'PATRICIA AMPONSAH', 'ERNEST OWUSU ABOAGYE', 'Commercial Court', '2011-05-19', ''),
(370, 'GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK VRS\r\nJERRY KOFI JOHNSON & ANOR', '', '../links/cases/COMMERCIAL BANK VS JERRY KOFI JOHNSON 26-4-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'At all times material to this case the 1st Defendant, Jerry Kofi Johnson Gawu\r\nwho traded under the name and style of WATERLILIES ENTERPRISE was a\r\ncustomer of the Plaintiff bank.\r\nIn that relationship, the 1st defendant applied for and was granted several\r\nbanking facilities by the Plaintiff.', 'JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Commercial', '', 'BFS/471/09', 'ANKAMAH MENSAH', 'S. M. ASANTE', 'Commercial Court', '2012-04-26', ''),
(371, 'QUAMAN COMPANY LTD \r\nVRS\r\nJOFMAK SHIPPING & TRADING CO. LTD & ANOR', '', '../links/cases/QUAMQN CO. VS JOFMAK SHIPPINF AND TRAD. 18-4-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'At the time material to this case the Plaintiff Company was the owner of a\r\nGhanaian registered vessel, the MV SAELJON. The 1st Defendant was a\r\nCompany that engaged in shipping Chartering, brokerage and other ship\r\noperating services with the 2nd defendant as its directing mind.', 'JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Commercial', '', 'RPC/225/10', 'D. K. AMELEY', '', 'Commercial Court', '2012-04-26', ''),
(372, 'URITY DISCOUNT COMPANY LTD\r\nVRS\r\nEMMANUEL ADDO ENT. LTD. & ANOR', '', '../links/cases/S. D. C. LTD  VS EMMANUEL ADDO 24-4-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '0000', 'high', '', 'JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Commercial ', '', 'BFS/281/09', 'GWENDOLYN OWUSU', '', 'Commercial Court', '2012-04-24', ''),
(373, 'THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR\r\nVRS\r\nJOSEPH KARAM & 2 ORS.', '', '../links/cases/THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR  VS JOSEPH KARAM 18-4-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'The Plaintiff operates in Ghana as a non-banking financial institution. The 1st\r\nDefendant, a body corporate was its customer. In that relationship, the\r\nPlaintiff claims to have advanced various facilities to the 1st defendant for its\r\nbusiness.', 'JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Commercial', '', 'BFS/281/09', 'GWENDOLYN OWUSU', '', 'Commercial Court', '2012-04-12', ''),
(374, 'MRS. GINA AMA BLAY and KWAME BLAY\r\nVRS.\r\nDELTA AIRLINES', '', '../links/cases/10MRS GINA BLAY VRS DELTA.pdf', 'Yes', 'MRS. JUSTICE GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', '', 'MRS. JUSTICE GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Commercial', '', 'RPC/303/09', 'GODFRED YEBOAH DAME', 'MS. LILY KUEVI', 'Commercial Court', '2010-04-19', ''),
(375, 'AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE LIMITED\r\nVRS.\r\nTEMA OIL REFINERY', '', 'links/cases/08AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE LTD.pdf', 'Yes', 'MRS. JUSTICE GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2008', 'high', 'Repudiation, rescission of contract, termination of contract without proof of prior\r\nbreach. Substitution of original contract – conditions required for validity,\r\nThe plaintiff, by its Writ and Statement of Claim filed on 15th January 2007, is claiming the\r\nsum of 144,424.83 euros or its cedi equivalent as monies due plaintiffs from ', 'MRS. JUSTICE GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Commercial', '', 'RPC09/07', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '2008-08-12', ''),
(377, 'NEW LUCKY ELECTRICAL LIMITED \r\nVRS\r\n1. STARTRACK INT. GHANA LIMITED\r\n2. ISAAC ACQUAH', '', '../links/cases/10NEW LUCKY VRS STARTRACK.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The plaintiff purchased an excavator from the defendant in April 2007 after seeing an\r\nadvert for the excavator in March 2007 – Exhibit A. In May 2007, he carted the excavator\r\naway from Defendant’s premises on a low-loader to a place near where its mining site\r\nwas. In June 2008,', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'OCC 49/08', 'ALEX ABBAN', 'YAW ADUBOFFOUR', 'Commercial Court', '2010-08-03', ''),
(378, 'DE SIMONE LIMITED\r\nVRS\r\nINTERCITY HOTELS LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/10De Simone v. intercity hotel.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The plaintiff was employed as a main contractor to construct the Accra Mall by the\r\nDefendant by appointment letter dated 14th December 2005. The construction contract\r\nwas governed by the Fourth Edition (1987) of the Conditions of Contract for Works of\r\nCivil Engineering Construction produced by the International Federation of Consulting\r\nEngineers, or', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC 246/09', 'AMANKWAH, COBBINAH', 'ADDO, ARHIN', 'Commercial Court', '2010-08-03', ''),
(379, 'HOTEL CHEZ MOI\r\nVRS\r\nUNIBANK GHANA LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/HOTEL CHEZ MOI VRS UNIBANK.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'In the December 1956 Legal Aid Briefcase Volume 15, page 75, Associate Supreme Court\r\nJustice Brennan is quoted as saying in the paper ‘The Community’s Responsibility for Legal Aid’\r\n‘Nothing rankles more in the human heart than a sense of injustice. Illness we can put\r\nup with; but injustice makes us want to pull things down’.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'OCC 28/09', 'EDWARD TWUM', 'DANIEL OFFEI, AMA OHENE-ASANTE', 'Commercial Court', '2010-08-02', ''),
(380, 'BISHOP SAMUEL VAGLAS KANCO\r\nVS\r\n1. C. D. INVESTMENTS LTD.\r\n2. PHOENIX INSURANCE CO. LTD.', '', '../links/cases/BISHOP SAMUEL VAGLAS VS C. D. INVESTMENTS LTD 10-8-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'The present suit was commenced by BISHOP SAMUEL BANABAS VAGLAS KANCO a\r\nMinister of the Gospel. He obviously might have, quite unusual of a man of the\r\npulpit decided to play on the rough arena of the corporate insurance industry and\r\nended up in litigation. At least over the subject of the instant litigation this is his\r\nsecond consecutive encounter with the court room.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/56/09', 'ANDREW TETTEH', 'KWESI APPIAKORANG', 'Commercial Court', '2011-08-10', ''),
(381, 'GULF CONSOLIDATED LTD \r\nVS\r\nGHANA INVESTMENT PROMOTION CENTRE', '', '../links/cases/GULF CONSOLIDATED LTD  VS  GHANA INVESTMENT PROMOTION  22-8-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'The Plaintiff in this case, Gulf Consolidated Ltd is the owner of a building\r\ncomplex popularly called “THE GULF HOUSE ANNEX”, situate in Accra. By a\r\ntenancy agreement made on the 19th of August 2008, the parties herein went\r\ninto a Landlord – Tenant relationship over this property', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/290/10', 'ABDUL RAHMAN MAHAMA', 'AKUA EGUAKON, ISAAC OFOSU BOATENG', 'Commercial Court', '2011-08-22', ''),
(382, 'UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA GHANA LTD\r\nVRS\r\nPAYOLA VENTURES AND ANOR', '', '../links/cases/UNITED BANK  FOR USA  VS PAYOLA 9-8-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'At all times material to this suit there was a bank-customer relationship between\r\nthe Plaintiff and the 1st defendant Company. The 2nd Defendant was the Managing\r\nDirector of the 1st Defendant.\r\nThe case put forward by the Plaintiff as pleaded in its amended statement of claim is\r\nthat on 6th May 2007 it', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'BFS/340/10', 'WILLIAM AYITEY', 'MARGARET OWUSU', 'Commercial Court', '2011-08-09', ''),
(383, 'KWADWO ADDISON\r\nVRS.\r\nEMIRATES GHANA LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/09KWADJO ADDISON VRS. EMIRATES.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2009', 'high', 'The Plaintiff sued the defendant for the sum of GH¢20,225.58 being the cost of\r\nfurnishing placed in House Number 14, Orchid Gardens 4th Circular Road, East\r\nCantonments, Accra, which Plaintiff had rented to the defendant from September 2006 to\r\n2008 and which was furnishing removed by defendant’s employee at the end of the\r\ntenancy period.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC46/2009', 'PAUL OPOKU', 'KWASI COLEMAN', 'Commercial Court', '2009-12-09', ''),
(384, 'PROFESSOR KOJO SAFFU & 6ORS.\r\nvrs. GIMPA', '', '../links/cases/09PROF SAFFU & 6ORS. VRS. GIMPA.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2009', 'high', '', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'BDC60/09', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '2009-12-16', ''),
(385, 'IMEXCO GHANA LIMITED\r\nVRS.\r\nDASHWOOD STEVEDORING CO. LTD.', '', '../links/cases/10IMEXCO VRS DASHWOOD STEVEDORING.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2008', 'high', 'The legal issues raised in contention in this case are firstly, the capacity of the plaintiff\r\nto sue the defendant when there is no direct contractual relation between them and\r\nsecondly, liability for negligence alleged after professional work has been satisfactorily\r\naccepted by the employer in a stevedoring contract.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'CGS19/06', 'KOJO BOTSIO', 'JULIO DE MEDEIROS', 'Commercial Court', '2008-12-23', ''),
(386, 'MERCHANT BANK GHANA LTD.\r\nVRS.\r\nJOSEPH OKYERE', '', '../links/cases/10MERBANK V. OKYERE.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The defendant is a customer of the plaintiff bank. By mutually signed agreement\r\ndated May 3rd 2006 (exhibit A), the Plaintiff granted overdraft facility of 5,000\r\nGhana Cedis (then fifty million cedis) to the defendant for a six-month period\r\nexpiring on November 30th 2006.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'BFS131/09', 'ABU, ROEERT KINGSLEY YEBOAH', 'KOJO KUM', 'Commercial Court', '2010-02-24', ''),
(387, 'UNIBANK GHANA LTD.\r\nVRS.\r\nUNIVERSAL OIL', '', '../links/cases/10UNIBANK VRS UNIVERSAL OIL.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The defendant does not have deny the liability endorsed on the writ of\r\nSummons and proved by Exhibits A, B and C. Its witness, Mr. Lamptey\r\nwhile presenting to this court that the debt arose because its affairs were\r\nmismanaged, also admits that this situation has nothing to do with the\r\nbank/creditor', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'BFS472/08', 'JOSEPH OKAI', 'PETER KWASI DADZIE', 'Commercial Court', '2010-02-22', ''),
(388, 'PROVIDENT INSURANCE CO. LTD. \r\nvrs. LIDRA LTD.', '', '../links/cases/10PROVIDENT INSURANCE VRS. LIDRA.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', '', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC259/09', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '2010-02-22', ''),
(389, 'AFUA GYAN-BAFFOUR\r\nVRS.\r\nBRITISH AIRWAYS', '', 'links/cases/08AFUA GYAN BAAFUOR judgment.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The plaintiff commenced this action on her own behalf and as guardian ad litem of her cousin,\r\nAMU ADJEI KORSAH. The established facts in the case are that the plaintiffs traveled on British\r\nAirways flight from Dulles Airport, Washington DC on 25th May 2008, transited through London\r\nHeathrow, and arrived in Ghana on 26th May 2008.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'BDC22/09', 'OKYERE AGYEKUM', 'PHILLIP JIMANOR', 'Commercial Court', '2010-02-01', ''),
(390, 'KASAPREKO COMPANY LTD.\r\nVS\r\nEMMANUEL LARYEA', '', '../links/cases/KASAPREKO  VS EMMANUEL LARYEA 7-2-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'The Plaintiff is a Limited Liability Company widely known to be engaged in\r\nthe wholesale production, manufacturing and distribution of alcoholic\r\nbeverages and other allied products. Following series of allegations of\r\ninfringement of its trademark by the defendant', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'IPR/1/2008', 'STAINLEY AMARTEIFIO', '', 'Commercial Court', '2011-02-07', ''),
(391, 'IAN WILSON SMITH\r\nVRS\r\nHYSEN GHANA LTD', '', '../links/cases/IAN WILSON  VS  HYSEN GHANA 16-2-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'Hysen Ghana Ltd, the Defendant in this case is a Limited Liability Company in\r\nGhana engaged in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT)\r\nBusiness. The Plaintiff was appointed the Managing Director of the Company\r\nsometime in January 2005 which duty he assumed in March 2005.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/236/10', 'EMMANUEL AMOFA', 'AMARTEI AMARTEIFIO', 'Commercial Court', '2012-02-16', ''),
(392, 'HENRY LARYEA MENSAH\r\nPER HIS LAWFUL ATTORNEY PERCY BOAMAH \r\nVRS\r\nNANA KWADWO OFOSU-AYEH', '', '../links/cases/HENRY LARYEA  VS NANA KWADWO OFOSU AYEH 9-2-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'The Plaintiff originally sued per a lawful Attorney but subsequently amended\r\nthe writ to proceed with the case in his own stead. His case in brief is that he\r\nsold a Caterpillar 325 BL to the Defendant on “as is” basis for the sum of\r\n90,000 USD. Sometime in April 2010, the Defendant paid 40,000 USD leaving\r\na balance of 50,000 USD', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/91/2011', 'GEOFFERY GYIN', 'WILLIAM ADDO', 'Commercial Court', '2012-02-09', ''),
(393, 'MICHAEL YAW GYIMAH AND ANOR\r\nVRS\r\nFIDELITY BANK', '', '../links/cases/MICHAEL YAW GYIMAH VS FIDELITY 16--2-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'The two Plaintiffs in this case are claiming two reliefs against the Fidelity\r\nBank as follows;\r\n"a) A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the vehicle in\r\ndispute\r\nb) An order for the Defendant to enter into account with the Plaintiff"', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'OCC/8/2011', 'ESI COBBINA', '', '', '2012-02-16', ''),
(394, 'NANA KWAME\r\nPER HIS LAWFUL ATTORNEY KWAME TAWIA \r\nVRS\r\nISAAC TEYE LANO', '', '../links/cases/NANA KWAME  VS ISAAC TEYE LANO 9-2-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'The Plaintiff filed the instant suit per his lawful Attorney. His simple case is\r\nthat in October 2009 he advanced a sum of GH¢50,000 to the Defendant to\r\nengage in the business of buying and selling gold. It was agreed that the\r\nDefendant at the end of every month shall pay to the Plaintiff 9% of the\r\nprincipal sum as a share of the profit from the sales.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/130/2011', 'CHARLES TETTEH', '', 'Commercial Court', '2012-02-09', '');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(395, 'H. F. C. BANK LTD\r\nVRS\r\nJAMES OKYERE & CO. LTD. & ANOR', '', '../links/cases/HFC  S JAMES OKYERE 23-2-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'This is an application by the Plaintiff/Applicant for Judgment on admission\r\npursuant to order 23 rule 6 (2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules C. I.\r\n47.\r\nThe Plaintiff Applicant', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'BFS/173/2011', 'YAW ESHUN', 'CHARLES PUOZUING', 'Commercial Court', '2012-02-23', ''),
(396, 'ARNOLDUS MARIA VAN DE MAST\r\n, ELIZABETH MARIA VAN DE MAST – VAN DER WAL PETITIONERS\r\nVRS\r\nPATRICK HARRO KOOLEN\r\n, NICOLE MARIA ESMERALDE KOOLEN-HEIJ', '', '../links/cases/KOSA BEACH AND ARNOLDUS MARIA VAN DE MAST VS PATRICK HARRO KOOLEN 26-1-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'Two Small Private Limited Liability Companies are in focus in these\r\nproceedings. “They are KOSA BEACH RESORT LTD AND ANNINOPA LTD.\r\nHenceforth in this delivery they shall be simply called “KOSA” AND\r\n“ANNINOPA”.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'MISC/05/2011', 'MARIETTA BREW APPIAH OPPONG', 'FREDERICK BOAMAH', 'Commercial Court', '2012-01-26', ''),
(397, 'TORDIA SAKARIA\r\nAND\r\nLEWIS MULLEN', '', '../links/cases/TONY ATAYI  VS TORDIA ZAKARIA  31-1-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'This is a Sheriff''s Interpleader Claim. In the case of REPUBLC VRS HIGH\r\nCOURT ACCRA; EXPARTE ANYAN (PLATINUM HOLDINGS INTERESTED\r\nPARTY) (2009) SCGLR 225, the Supreme Court stated:', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/250/2010', 'DELA BLAGOGEE', 'AMOFA AGYEMANG', 'Commercial Court', '2012-01-31', ''),
(398, 'GHANA TELECOMMNICATIONS LTD\r\nVRS\r\nU. T. BANK LTD.', '', '../links/cases/GHANA TELECOM VS UT 31-1-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'Sometime in 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with a Company\r\ncalled THYWILL BUESINESS AND INVESTMENT CONSULTANTCY CO. LTD.\r\n(herein THYWILL CO.) under which the latter was appointed a distributor of\r\nthe Plaintiff’s Products in the Volta Region of Ghana.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'BFS/67/11', 'GWENDY BANNERMAN', '', 'Commercial Court', '2012-01-31', ''),
(399, 'MAWULI DECKER\r\nVRS.\r\nHONOURABLE OBOSHIE SAI COFIE', '', '../links/cases/10MAWULI DECKER V MAWULI DECKER.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The plaintiff sued the defendant for the sum of 30,000 GH Cedis as remuneration for the\r\nuse of plaintiff’s music album titled "Kuffuor the winner" in the reelection campaign of His\r\nExcellency President Kuffuor in 2004. The defendant’s defence was that she had not\r\nentered into any contract with the plaintiff', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC448/2008', '', '', '', '2010-01-20', ''),
(400, 'SYDNEY FRANCIS A. MACCARTHY\r\nVRS.\r\nA & B GROUP LTD. & ANOR.', '', '', 'No', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The Defendants failed to appear before this court for trial although they were served\r\nwith notice of it.\r\nThe court has listened to Plaintiff and on the strength of the cogency of the evidence\r\nand exhibits, the court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has established his claim for\r\nGH¢210,000 with interest thereon from 28th April 2003 as claimed.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC153/09', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '2010-01-22', ''),
(401, 'AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE\r\nVRS.\r\n1. MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND MANPOWER\r\n2. ATTORNEY GENERAL', '', 'links/cases/09African Automobile v. Ministry of Employment JUDGMENT.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2009', 'high', 'This action was commenced on 5th November 2007 for recovery of the sum of\r\n502,799,615.33 cedis or 50,279.96 Ghana cedis. In the statement of claim, the plaintiff\r\npleaded that it had entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Employment,\r\nManpower & Development through a letter dated 21st April 1997', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC345/07', 'ADDO ATTUAH', 'ADUSU', 'Commercial Court', '2009-07-31', ''),
(402, 'MERCHANT BANK GHANA LIMITED\r\nVRS\r\nPEMSON VENTURES LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/10Merchant Bank v PEMSON.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The defendant is a customer of the plaintiff bank. The undisputed facts are\r\nthat on 24th December 2007, the defendant acting per its agents deposited an\r\noffshore cheque with a value of 105,728.40$ drawn on Amgen in the USA in\r\nits account with plaintiff bank.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'BFS 140/09', 'DORA OCQUAYE-NORTEY', 'NANA ATO DADZIE', 'Commercial Court', '2010-07-09', ''),
(403, 'MODERN WOOD TECHNOLOGY LTD.\r\nVRS\r\nECOBANK GHANA LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/10MODERN WOOD VRS ECOBANK.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'This is not a run off the mill case in our civil jurisdiction. The undisputed facts are that\r\nthe plaintiff held a current account at the defendant’s branch in Kumasi. One\r\nConstantine Zeleku worked as the accountant of the plaintiff company during the\r\nperiod 2004 to 2007.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'BFS 476/08', 'KWAKU YEBOAH APPIAH', 'MARY NARTEY HOLDING', 'Commercial Court', '2010-07-02', ''),
(404, 'NAA DEDE ADDY\r\nVS\r\nFIRST CAPITAL PLUS', '', '../links/cases/NAA DEDE ADDY  VS FIRST CAPITAL PLUS 15-7-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'This dispute has arisen out of two (2) loan facilities disbursed to a certain\r\nGabriel Ofori Atta some time in September and November 2008 by the\r\nDefendant, a non Bank Financial Institution.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'BDC/64/2009', 'DAVID AMETEPEH', 'KWABENA KONADU YIADOM', 'Commercial Court', '2011-07-15', ''),
(405, 'POWERPACKED DIST. CENTRE LTD\r\nVS\r\nTHE PROPRIETOR, REGY’S SUPER BAR', '', '../links/cases/POWERPACKED DIST. CENTRE  VS THE PROPRIETOR REGY''S SUPER BAR 12-7-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'At all times material to the events culminating in the present litigation, the\r\nPlaintiff Company was a distributor of alcoholic and non alcoholic products of\r\nGuinness Ghana Ltd.\r\nThe Defendant, a retailer of the same products was a customer to the Plaintiff.\r\nFrom the evidence on record the Plaintiff used to supply the Defendant on a\r\nshort term credit basis.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/458/08', 'AKU SHIKA DADZIE', 'AWUKU PEPRAH', 'Commercial Court', '2011-07-12', ''),
(406, 'NAA DEDE ADDY\r\nVS\r\nFIRST CAPITAL PLUS', '', '../links/cases/NAA DEDE ADDY  VS FIRST CAPITAL PLUS 15-7-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'This dispute has arisen out of two (2) loan facilities disbursed to a certain\r\nGabriel Ofori Atta some time in September and November 2008 by the\r\nDefendant, a non Bank Financial Institution.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'BDC/64/2009', 'DAVID AMETEPEH', 'KWABENA KONADU YIADOM', 'Commercial Court', '2011-07-15', ''),
(407, 'POWERPACKED DIST. CENTRE LTD\r\nVS\r\nTHE PROPRIETOR, REGY’S SUPER BAR', '', '../links/cases/POWERPACKED DIST. CENTRE  VS THE PROPRIETOR REGY''S SUPER BAR 12-7-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'At all times material to the events culminating in the present litigation, the\r\nPlaintiff Company was a distributor of alcoholic and non alcoholic products of\r\nGuinness Ghana Ltd.\r\nThe Defendant, a retailer of the same products was a customer to the Plaintiff.\r\nFrom the evidence on record the Plaintiff used to supply the Defendant on a\r\nshort term credit basis.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/458/08', 'AKU SHIKA DADZIE', 'AWUKU PEPRAH', 'Commercial Court', '2011-07-12', ''),
(408, 'NANA OTIEKU AMOANI ASARE\r\nVS\r\nMESSRS KWADWO ABBAN & CO.', '', '../links/cases/NANA OTIEKU AMOANI ASARE  VS MESSRS KWADWO ABBAN 15-7-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'The parties in this case have litigated before. The events that have culminated\r\nin the successive cases are of the same background and so the basic facts of\r\nthis matter are not in doubt.\r\nFollowing the construction of the Akosombo hydro electric facility, certain\r\nlands in the catchment area were flooded.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/197/2010', 'NYAMEKYE BAAH', 'EMMANUEL AMOFAH', 'Commercial Court', '2011-07-15', ''),
(409, 'S.D.C. FINANCE & LEASING\r\nVRS\r\nBENYA SHIPPING AGENCY GH. LTD.', '', '../links/cases/SDC  VS  BENYA SHIPPING AGENCY 7-7-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'The Plaintiff is a Non-Bank Financial Institution engaged in the business of short\r\nterm lending and discounting of financial instruments and receivables.\r\nThe Defendant a shipping agency deals inter alia in assorted frozen products. Some\r\ntime in 2007, an entity called CHEU Company', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'BFS/286/10', 'OPOKU BOATENG', '', 'Commercial Court', '2011-07-07', ''),
(410, 'STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD\r\nVS\r\nCHYUAN CHYA GHANA INVESTMENT LTD & 3 ORS', '', '../links/cases/STANDARD CHART. BK  VS CHYAN CHYA INV. 21-7-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'RULING ON APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\r\nThe instant application by the Plaintiff is for Summary Judgment. On the writ\r\nof summons as amended, the Plaintiff seeks the following reliefs against the 1st\r\n2nd , 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants jointly severally', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'BFS/193/2010', 'FRANK DAVIES', '', 'Commercial Court', '2011-07-21', ''),
(411, 'WILLIAM TIMBILLA\r\nVS\r\nREJOICE BAMALABONG & ANOR\r\nSURAKA ABDUL RAMAN LARY', '', '../links/cases/WILLIAM TIMBILLA  VS REJOYCE BAMALABONG 14-7-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'On the 17th of June, 2010 this court entered judgment for the Plaintiff against the\r\nDefendant in the main suit to recover the sum of GH¢63,360 being the cedi\r\nequivalent of €36,000 with interest and costs in the sum of GH¢2,000.\r\nTo reap the fruit of the judgment the Plaintiff caused to be attached by a writ of\r\nfifa a FORD AERO MAX', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/47/2007', 'GABRIEL PWAMANG', '', 'Commercial Court', '2011-07-14', ''),
(412, 'IFS FINANCE & LEASING COMPANY LIMITED\r\nVRS\r\n1. CYNTHIA ASANTEWAA OSEI KOFI\r\n2. NANA OSEI BONSU OKOAWIA', '', '../links/cases/10IFS VRS CYNTHIA OSEI KOFI.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', '', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'BFS 17/09', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '2010-07-28', ''),
(413, 'AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE\r\nVRS\r\nGHANA TELECOM', '', '../links/cases/10AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE VRS GHANA TELECOM.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'Plaintiff, a company that distributes, services and repairs vehicles and motor cycles sold\r\nmotor cycles and vehicles and provided other services to defendant, a major telecom\r\ncompany. On the claim by plaintiff that defendant had unpaid debits on its accounts\r\nwith plaintiff from 1996,', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC 43/08', 'ADWOA SERWAH ASAMOAH ADDO', '', 'Commercial Court', '2010-00-00', ''),
(414, 'GUARANTY TRUST BANK LIMITED\r\nVRS\r\n1. HON. PAUL COLLINGS APPIAH-OFORI\r\n2. THE SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT', '', '../links/cases/10GUARANTEE TRUST VRS PC APPIAH OFORI.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with defendant on 19th June 2007, by the\r\nterms of which the plaintiff granted the defendant a loan facility of GH¢30,000. Defendant\r\nwas to pay only interest on the loan sum for the 20 month loan period and pay the full\r\nsum at the end of it.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'BFS 221/09', 'CARLOS D’SOUZA', 'KOFI BOAKYE', 'Commercial Court', '2010-07-09', ''),
(415, 'ALBERT ESSAMUAH ASSOICATES LTD. \r\nVRS\r\nZAIN COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/10Essamuah v ZAIN 2.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', '', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC 435/09', 'KORKOR OKUTU', 'MICHAEL AKAMBEK', 'Commercial Court', '2010-07-07', ''),
(416, 'CHARLES FRIMPONG\r\nVRS\r\nGODWIN AKUMAH', '', '../links/cases/10CHARLES FRIMPONG V GODWIN AKUMAH.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The undisputed facts in this case are that in January 2009, plaintiff went to defendant’s\r\nshop to purchase a steering rack for his Toyota 4 Runner vehicle. Finding what was\r\navailable too expensive, the plaintiff opted to have the steering rack on his car repaired\r\nfor him. His car was sent to a mechanic for', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC 223/09', 'THOMAS STEPHENS', 'ANTHONY NAMOO', 'Commercial Court', '2010-07-20', ''),
(417, 'CAL BANK LIMITED\r\nVRS\r\nGENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/10CAL BANK V.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The defendant is a customer of the Takoradi Harbor branch of the plaintiff bank.\r\nIt is the case of the plaintiff that sometime in June 2009, after the abrupt\r\nresignation of its manager at this branch, it conducted investigations and an\r\ninternal audit in this branch which established that between February 12 to May\r\n27 2009,', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'BFS 405/09', 'NATHANIEL HEGBOR', 'JONATHAN K.M. ASEMPA', 'Commercial Court', '2010-07-30', ''),
(418, 'EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF U.S.A.\r\nVRS\r\nOSIADAN COMPANY LTD & 2 ORS.', '', '../links/cases/EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF USA  VS  OSIADAN CO. LTD 5-7-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'The Osiadan Company Ltd, the 1st Defendant Company engages in the\r\nmanufacturing of concrete blocks, roofing tiles, pavement blocks and other\r\nconcrete products. Sometime around 2000 the company', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/83/2009', 'DANIEL KOFITSE', 'LOUIS KUDJO BLEWUSI', 'Commercial Court', '2012-07-05', ''),
(419, 'ECOBANK GHANA LTD\r\nVRS\r\nNETLYNK KEA SYSTEMS LTD', '', '../links/cases/ECOBANK  GH LTD  VS NETLYNK KEA SYSTEMS 5-7-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'At all times material to this action, the Defendant Company was a customer of\r\nthe Plaintiff Bank. In the course of their dealing, the Plaintiff, at the request of\r\nthe Defendant approved a finance lease facility to enable the Defendant\r\npurchase vehicles for its operations. The sum approved in this transaction\r\nwas USD48,000.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'BFS/252/2011', 'BANNERMAN WILLIAMS', '', 'Commercial Court', '2012-07-07', ''),
(420, 'ALLPORT LIMITED\r\nVRS.\r\nFISAP INTERNATIONAL LTD.', '', '../links/cases/ALLPORT V. FISAP.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2006', 'high', 'BY COURT: Application for Summary Judgment.\r\ni) Judgment is entered for Plaintiff in the Sum of ¢236,532,000\r\nwith interest thereon from 23rd June 2004 at the prevailing\r\ncommercial bank rate till date of payment\r\nii) The Defendant is further ordered to pay Plaintiff ‘s costs of\r\n¢15,000,000 plus ¢23,000,000 for defending itself against\r\nOando Ghana Limited and ¢25,000,000 in legal costs for this\r\ncourt case totaling ¢63,000,000.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'BDC19/06', 'Bernard Teye Ayiflo-Asare', '', 'Commercial Court', '2006-06-05', ''),
(421, 'ROM ENGINEERING LTD.\r\nVRS\r\n1. NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK LT.\r\n2. WESTEC SECURITY', '', '../links/cases/ROM ENGINEERING  VS  N. I. B. - 10-6-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'Briefly stated, the facts of this case which one may find quite interesting are as\r\nfollows; sometime in 1996, the Plaintiff Company obtained a loan from the National\r\nInvestment Bank which facility it defaulted in repaying. The National Investment\r\nBank, the 1st Defendant herein sued the Plaintiff and obtained judgment to recover\r\nthe sum of USD1,657,267.86 and cost of GH¢50,000.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/30/2010', 'FOSTER GBONEY', 'ADU MANTEY', 'Commercial Court', '2011-06-10', ''),
(422, '1. MOHAMMED .B. SAHNOON\r\n2. MRS. ROSEMARY .B. SAHNOON\r\nVRS\r\nREGIMANUEL GRAY LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/10MOHAMMED SHANOON VRS REGIMANUEL GRAY.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The plaintiffs purchased a house valued at 187,400$ from the defendant company per\r\nagreement dated October 2007. The agreement was tendered as exhibit A. Section 2.2\r\nof the agreement provided that within 180 days of receipt of 40% of the purchase\r\nprice, the developer would commence construction of the house.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'OCC 4/09', 'FRANK DAVIS', 'FRANCIS ARCHIBONGA', 'Commercial Court', '2010-06-10', ''),
(423, 'DR. BERNARD BAIDEN\r\nVRS\r\n1. FEEL AT HOME DECORATIONS LTD.\r\n2. RICHARD CUDJOE', '', '../links/cases/10DR. BAIDEN VRS FEEL @ HOME.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The plaintiff is a lecturer in a University, the 1st defendant is a limited liability company\r\ninvolved in the production of furniture and the 2nd defendant is the managing director\r\nof the 1st defendant. The parties are agreed that they entered into a transaction for\r\nthe defendant to make the following furniture for the plaintiff:', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC 401/09', 'GEORGE AMISSAH', 'AMOATEY', 'Commercial Court', '2010-06-29', ''),
(424, 'LEMM NORBERT\r\nVRS\r\nGEORGE BOATENG', '', '../links/cases/10LEMM NORBERT V GEORGE BOATENG.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2011', 'high', 'The plaintiff’s case against the defendant is that he supplied various items to the\r\ndefendant between 2006 and 2008 valued at GH¢24,545.00. He tendered exhibits A\r\nto A7 as the delivery notes signed by the defendant when the items listed thereon\r\nwere supplied to and received by the defendant.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC53/09', 'GEORGE AMISSAH', 'AMOATEY', 'Commercial Court', '2011-06-08', ''),
(425, 'CO-INVENT LIMITED\r\nVRS\r\n1. L’ECOLE FRANCAISE JACQUES\r\n2. COMITE DE GESTION', '', '../links/cases/CO-INVENT LTD  VS L''ECOLE FRANCAISE JAC 17-6-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'The Plaintiff by its writ of summons seeks the following reliefs against the\r\nDefendants.\r\n1. Recovery of USD3,322,269.78 representing special damages suffered by the\r\nPlaintiff as a result of the Defendants’ breach and unlawful termination of the\r\ncontract.\r\n2. Interest on special damages from the date the respective heads became due\r\ntill date of final payment.\r\n3. General damages in the sum of USD 672,046.08', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/180/2011', 'MAWUENA AGBENOTO', 'VICTOR ANKU TSEDE', 'Commercial Court', '2011-06-17', ''),
(426, 'PETER DARKO aka KOBIBA DARKO\r\nVRS\r\n1. WILBERFORCE OWUSU ANSAH\r\n2. MRS. OWUSU ANSAH', '', '../links/cases/10PETER DARKO VRS WILBERFORCE OWUSU ANSAH.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The undisputed facts are that in 2006, the plaintiff sent a Honda Odyssey into Ghana\r\non a container shipped from the United States of America by a certain John Mensah.\r\nAlthough the consignee of the car was John Mensah, the car was cleared by the\r\nplaintiff''s brother called Osei Tutu Brempong.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC 91/08', 'YAW OPPONG', 'BEN SACKEY', 'Commercial Court', '2012-06-22', ''),
(427, 'ALHAJI YUSIF IBRAHIM\r\nVRS\r\nDR. KOJO OWUSU-NYANTAKYI', '', '../links/cases/10ALHAJI YUSUF VRS DR. KOJO NYANTAKYI.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The plaintiff’s case is that he leased his property numbered 8 Alema Avenue,\r\nAirport to the defendant for a two year period from November 2006 to\r\nOctober 2008 at a rent of $1,500 per month.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC 368/09', 'HAFISATU AMALEBOBE', '', 'Commercial Court', '2010-06-10', ''),
(428, 'ALHAJI HARUNA DRAMANI\r\nVRS\r\nTAPSIRU FATAU', '', '../links/cases/10ALHAJI HARUNA DRAMANI VRS TAPSIRU FATAU.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'Having listened to the Plaintiff and the Defendant being absent and in view of the\r\nfrail health of the Plaintiff and the fact that the defence admits receipt of Plaintiff’s\r\n$82,000', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC 437/09', 'SAM WOOD', '', 'Commercial Court', '2010-06-10', ''),
(429, 'ENGINEERING SYSTEM & SERVICES LTD\r\nVRS.\r\nMACBEN SOFTWARE LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/10ess vrs macben.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The plaintiff has sued the defendant for the sum of US$19,006 arising out of two invoices\r\ndated 4th April 2008 and 6th April 2008 respectively and issued by plaintiff to defendant for\r\nthe supply of internet services and equipment. They were tendered as exhibits A and C\r\nrespectively.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC317/08', 'ERIC ATIEKU', 'PAUL OWUSU KUMI', 'Commercial Court', '2010-03-29', ''),
(430, 'BEVERAGE INVESTMENTS GH. LTD\r\nVRS.\r\nLOCAL ORGANISING COMMITTEE\r\nMTN AFRICAN CUP OF NATION GH. 2008', '', '../links/cases/10BIG VRS LOC.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'In its statement of claim, the plaintiff alleges breach of two agreements as the cause of action. The\r\nfirst one is an agreement between CAF (Confederation of African Football) and Pepsi Cola which\r\nplaintiff alleges that the defendant had breached – in their capacity as the local organizing\r\ncommittee in charge of organizing the 26th MTN African Cup of Nations Ghana 2008', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'BDC8/08', 'VICTOR KODJOGA ADAWUDU', '', 'Commercial Court', '2010-03-16', ''),
(431, 'CHARLES OBIMPEH\r\nVRS.\r\nREGINA KUFFOUR', '', '../links/cases/10CHARLES OBMIMPEH VRS REGINA KUFFOUR.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The Claimant applied to this court for relief under an interpleader action.\r\nThe evidence tendered is that he bought the land in dispute in 1968. Government of\r\nGhana acquired a tract of land including this land as Public land under Act 125.\r\nGovernment of Ghana failed to utilize the land for the purposes acquired and in 2000,', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC118/08', 'PETER EBO AMISSAH', '', 'Commercial Court', '2010-03-10', ''),
(432, 'STEPHEN ATTA KWASI AKOWUAH\r\nVRS.\r\n1. MR. J.B.K. ABBAN\r\n2. KODWO ABBAN & CO.', '', '../links/cases/10STEPHEN ATTA KWASI AKOWUAH V.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'This dispute centers on the interpretation of a group of documents executed for, and\r\nentered into for the purpose of obtaining compensation from Government for an area\r\ndescribed as Pai Flooded Area and the obligations and rights of the parties flowing from\r\nthese contracts. I will set them out in chronological order.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC188/09', 'KWAME YANKYERE', 'OLIVER BIO', 'Commercial Court', '2010-03-31', ''),
(433, 'MRS. BAABA MAISON\r\nVRS.\r\nBASARAN MAKINA LTD', '', '../links/cases/10MRS BAABA MAISON VRS BASARAN  LTD.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The plaintiff conducts her business of rental and party services and sale of general\r\nmerchandise under the name and style of B.M. Classics which she registered as a\r\nbusiness name on 2nd February 2007. On 25th August 2008, the Daily Graphic\r\nadvertised a clothing', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'IPR/7/09', 'JOSEPH ACHEAMPONG', 'AMANKWAH TWUM', 'Commercial Court', '2010-03-18', ''),
(434, 'POTRODOM INT. PRIVATE LTD\r\nVRS.\r\nBASHIRU MOHAMMED', '', '', 'No', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'The parties are entrepreneurs who deal in scrap metal. The undisputed facts are that around February\r\n2006, the defendant had a demolition contract in the Kumasi sports stadium. He was approached by one\r\nGilbert Djordji, PW1 and a former employee of the plaintiff for the purchase of the metal scrap obtained\r\nfrom the demolition. PW1 made the first payment of 5 million cedis', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'RPC431/08', 'SAMUEL CODJOE', '', 'Commercial Court', '2010-03-12', ''),
(435, 'PARITY INVESTMENT\r\nVRS.\r\nSOPHIA NKANSAH', '', '../links/cases/10PARITY INVESTMENT VRS SOPHIA NKANSAH.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2010', 'high', 'Counsel for Defendant continues to fail to attend court although hearing\r\nnotices have consistently been served on him.\r\nThe Plaintiff has led evidence supporting its claim. What the exhibits inform\r\nthe court is that the contract between parties was scheduled to expire on\r\n20th September 2008.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'BFS389/08', 'ISAAC AIDOO', '', 'Commercial Court', '2010-03-01', ''),
(436, '1. ISSAKA IDRISSA\r\n2. AXA ASSURANCES SENEGAL - PLAINTIFFS\r\nVRS.\r\n1. NAMIBIA SHIPPING LIMITED\r\n2. AFRICAN SERVICES (DK) A/S\r\n3. THOMAS MILLER P & 1 LTD', '', '../links/cases/10ISSAKA IDRISSA VRS NAMIBIA SHIPPING.pdf', 'Yes', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', '2012', 'high', 'BY COURT: Parties have settled their dispute and terms of settlement\r\nset down as Consent Judgment.\r\nDefendants will pay Plaintiff the sum of GH¢40,000.00 as full\r\nand final settlement of claims and costs of GH¢2,000.00.', 'GERTRUDE TORKORNOO', 'Civil', '', 'OCC63/07', 'ADINA AKUOKO', 'ROUGIE THOMASI', 'Commercial Court', '2010-03-12', ''),
(437, 'KOFI APPENTENG AND ANOR\r\nVRS.\r\nSTEPHEN APPENTENG AND ORS.', '', '../links/cases/KOFI APENTENG  VS KWABENA APPENTENG 28-2-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2010', 'high', '', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', 'R U L I N G\r\nA proposed Extra ordinary General Meeting (E.G.M.) of the shareholders of the\r\nPanbros Salt Industries Ltd (herein “The Company”) and matters incidental\r\nthereto are what have culminated in the instant application. The two\r\nApplicants Kofi Appenteng and Kwabena Appenteng', 'MISC/07/11', 'MARGARET OWUSU', 'NANA SEKYIWAA, OPOKU ADJAYE', 'Commercial Court', '2012-03-02', ''),
(438, 'EAGLE HAULAGE\r\nVRS\r\nNORDIC MOTORS', '', '../links/cases/EAGLE HAULAGE 31-3-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'The two parties in this case are Limited Liability Companies registered under\r\nthe laws of Ghana.\r\nThe Plaintiff is engaged in the haulage business whilst the Defendant is a\r\nvendor and distributor of all types of vehicles including trucks, buses,\r\nindustrial and marine engines.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'BDC/31/09', 'CARL ADONGO', 'MOSES FOH AMOANING', 'Commercial Court', '2011-03-31', ''),
(439, 'STANBIC BANK LIMITED - PLAINTIFF\r\nVRS\r\n1. NETLYNK KEA SYSTEMS LTD.\r\n2. HAMES ATO ORLEANS-LINDSAY DEFENDANTS\r\n3. KWABENA SELBY', '', '../links/cases/STANBIC VS. NETLYNK  24-3-11.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2011', 'high', 'The facts of this case are by no means complicated. The 1st Defendant Company, a\r\ncustomer of the Plaintiff Bank was in obvious need of funds to finance the\r\ndevelopment of a 20 house facility to be known as the “ACHIMOTA PROJECT”. Upon\r\nrequest the Plaintiff on 24th September, 2008 approved a property loan of\r\nGH¢1,400,000 to the 1st Defendant. The terms of the facility are contained in a\r\nproperty loan facility letter tendered at the trial as Exhibit “A”.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'BFS/96/2010', 'FRANK BEECHEM', 'GEORGE AMISSAH', 'Commercial Court', '2011-03-24', ''),
(440, 'BD GOLDFIELDS LTD. - PLAINTIFF\r\nVRS\r\n1. GOLDEN STAR RESOURCES LTD. DEFENDANTS\r\n2. ST. JUDE RESOURCES GHANA LTD.', '', '../links/cases/BD GOLDFIELDS  VS GOLDEN STAR RESOURCES LTD 30-5-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'The subject matter of this suit is a gold mining concession known as the ADUM\r\nBANSO MPOHOR CONCESSION (“The Concession”).\r\nIn 1988, the Government of Ghana granted a prospecting licence over the\r\nconcession to a company called DABIKROM INTERGRATED COMPANY LTD to\r\nprospect for gold. That Company later became known as the B D Goldfields Ltd; the\r\nPlaintiff herein.', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/282/10', 'ESINE OKUDZETO', '', 'Commercial Court', '2012-05-30', ''),
(441, 'INTER -AFRIQUE HOLDING LTD\r\nVRS\r\nTSAKOS SHIPPING & TRADING LTD.', '', '../links/cases/INTER AFRIQUE HOLDING LTD  VS TSAKOS SHIPPING 22-5-12.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', 'It will be useful to recount the background events culminating in this suit.\r\nFrom the record before me this is the parties’ third encounter in the corridors\r\nof the High Court seeking to have justice administered.\r\nThe Defendant Company', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', 'RPC/100/11', 'K. AMOAH', 'BEDIATUO', 'Commercial Court', '2012-05-22', ''),
(442, 'Accra Brewery Limited\r\nVrs.\r\nJohn Tagoe', '', '../links/cases/Accra Brewery Vrs. John Tagoe.pdf', 'Yes', 'J. B. AKAMBA, MARIAMA OWUSU, E. K. AYEBI , J.A.', '2012', 'appeal', 'This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Accra, dated\r\n10-6-2009. In the said decision, the court gave judgment for the\r\nplaintiff and held among other things that:\r\n“The incident that led to the wrong', 'MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/165/2011', 'Frank Donkor', 'George Bekai', 'Appeal Court', '2012-05-12', ''),
(443, 'CHEZ MARIE LOU RESTAURANT \r\nVS\r\n1. EMMANUEL BOSSMAN\r\n2. LORIS TRADING & CONST LTD. & ORS', '', '../links/cases/Ibrahim Issah Vs. Billy Ananful & Ano.pdf', 'Yes', 'J. B. AKAMBA, MARIAMA OWUSU, E. K. AYEBI , J.A.', '2012', 'appeal', '', 'ACQUAYE, J.A.', 'Civil', 'ACQUAYE, JA:-\r\nThe plaintiff/appellant issued a writ of summons accompanied by a statement of\r\nclaim against the first two defendants claiming an order for recovery of\r\npossession of House No. F 871 Oxford Street, Osu, Accra, damages for trespass\r\nand perpetual injunction.', 'H1/102/2012', '', '', 'Appeal Court', '2012-05-24', ''),
(444, 'ADJETEY ADJEI\r\n\r\nVRS\r\n1. SEIDU ABUBAKAR\r\n2. LANDS COMMISSION', '', '../links/cases/Adjetey Adjei v. Seidu Abubakar n Lands Comm.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2012', 'appeal', '', 'KUSI-APPIAH, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/61/2012', '', '', 'Appeal Court', '2012-05-10', ''),
(445, 'CHARLES L. QUIST \r\nVRS.\r\nAHMED DANAWI\r\n', '', '../links/cases/Judgment - Charles L. Quist v. Ahmed Danawi.pdf', 'Yes', 'ASARE KORANG, KANYOKE, ADUAMA OSEI,', '2012', 'appeal', 'This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Accra,\r\ndated the 3rd day of June 2010. The facts giving rise to this\r\nappeal are as follows: The plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter\r\nreferred to as the Respondent)', 'KANYOKE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/215/2011', '', '', 'Appeal Court', '2012-04-19', ''),
(446, 'MUSTAPHA KOLNABA\r\nVRS.\r\nSAMUEL DOKU\r\n', '', '../links/cases/Judgment - Mustapha Kalnaba v. Samuel Doku.pdf', 'Yes', 'KANYOKE, OFOE,, ADJEI', '2012', 'appeal', 'KANYOKE, J.A.\r\nThis appeal which has emanated from the ruling of the Circuit\r\nJudge at Ashaiman Circuit Court reveals a clear case of a\r\nfraudulent breach of trust resulting in an unfortunate and a very\r\nserious and damaging miscarriage of justice to', 'KANYOKE, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/4/12', 'SAM KYERE', 'MOHAMMED ATTAH', 'Appeal Court', '2012-05-10', ''),
(447, '1. KWABLA DZODANU\r\n2. SETH LAVIE\r\n\r\nVRS.\r\nRUBBER PLANTATION LTD', '', '../links/cases/KWABENA DZODANU _1_.pdf', 'Yes', 'AKAMBA, APALOO, OFOE', '2012', 'appeal', 'OFOE,J.A:\r\nThe facts of this case are simple and substantially not in dispute.\r\nThe defendant/appellant company(hereinafter referred to as the\r\ndefendant) has acquired from the Divestiture Implementation\r\nCommittee lands for the cultivation of a rubber plantation.', 'OFOE,J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/44/2012', 'S. ASANTE', 'JOHN KLU', 'Appeal Court', '2012-05-24', ''),
(448, 'Maersk Ghana Limited \r\nFishing Harbour\r\nTema\r\nVrs.\r\nJEMT Company Limited \r\nShopping Center Comm Tema', '', '../links/cases/Maersk Ghana Limited Vrs. JEMT Ltd..pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU, DANQUAH, DZAMEFE', '2012', 'appeal', 'This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Tema\r\ndated 25-2-2010. In the said decision, the court entered judgment\r\nfor the plaintiff against defendant in the sum of GH¢486,000 (486\r\nmillion old cedis) plus interest at the prevailing bank rate to be\r\ncalculated from 17th of March,', 'MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/96/2011', 'Charles Hayibor', 'Michael Owusu-Awuah', 'Appeal Court', '2012-05-24', ''),
(449, 'MILLICENT ASARE BOAFO\r\nVRS\r\nPETER ABABIO\r\n', '', './links/cases/MILLICENT ASARE BOAFO VRS PETER ABABIO.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2012', 'appeal', '', '', '', '', '', '', '', '', '0000-00-00', ''),
(450, 'PATRICK KUNTOR\r\nVRS.\r\n1. NUUMO KLOTIA AKOR\r\n2. SAMUEL OKPOTI ADJEI\r\n3. DANIEL AKOTA ASARE', '', '../links/cases/PATRICK KUNTOR V NUUMO KLOTIA AKOR & OTHERS.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2012', 'appeal', '', '', '', '', '', '', '', 'Appeal Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(451, 'CHEZ MARIE LOU RESTAURANT\r\nVS\r\nEMMANUEL BOSSMAN AND 4 OTHERS\r\n', '', '../links/cases/Restaurant vrs Emmanuel Bossman & 4 others.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2012', '', '', '', '', '', '', '', '', 'Appeal Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(452, 'TENASSA PHARMACEUTICAL & TRADING CO. LTD\r\nFORMERLY KNOWN AS ASANTE CHEMICAL STORES – PLF/RESP\r\nVRS\r\nISSAKA KOANDA', '', '../links/cases/TENASSA PHARM V ISSAKA KOANDA.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2012', 'appeal', '', '', '', '', '', '', '', 'Appeal Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(453, '1. MICHAEL NTIM GYAKARI\r\n2. PAUL MENSAH \r\n3. FRANK DANKWA\r\nVRS\r\nTHE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/THE REPUBLIC V MICHEAL NTI GYAKARI.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2012', 'appeal', '', '', '', '', '', '', '', 'Appeal Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(454, 'GLOBAL MARKETFLEX LIMITED\r\nVRS.\r\nGHANA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD', '', '../links/cases/GLOBAL MARKETFLEXVRS GHANA TELECOM.pdf', 'Yes', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', '2012', 'high', '', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '0000-00-00', ''),
(455, 'STANBIC BANK LIMITED \r\nVRS.\r\n1. QUICK FIT SERVICES CENTRE LTD\r\n2. KINGSLEY AGYEMAN', '', '../links/cases/STANBIC QUICKFIT.pdf', 'Yes', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', '2012', 'high', '', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(456, 'EXIMGUARANTY CO. GHANA LIMITED\r\nVRS.\r\n1. WEST AFRICAN EXCHANGE CO. LTD\r\n2. NANA AGYEMAN PENSAN', '', '../links/cases/EXIMGUARANTY V. WEST AFRICAN EXCHANGE.pdf', 'Yes', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', '2012', 'high', '', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(457, 'INTER-CON S ECURITY SYSTEMS GHANA LTD\r\nVRS.\r\nSTAR ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/HENRY ADDO V. GLADYS TENI ABULU.pdf', 'Yes', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', '2012', 'high', '', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(458, 'HENRY ADDO\r\nVRS.\r\nGLADYS TENI ABULU', '', '../links/cases/HENRY ADDO V. GLADYS TENI ABULU.pdf', 'Yes', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', '2012', 'high', '', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(459, 'AMALGAMATED BANK LIMITED\r\nVRS.\r\n1. STREET SHOPS LIMITED\r\n2. FREDRICK DANSO\r\n3. SAM EBO ENOS', '', '../links/cases/AMALGAMATED BANK V. STREET SHOPS.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', '', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(460, 'SO ENERGY (GH) LTD\r\nVRS.\r\n1. NAMAS B COMPANY LIMITED\r\n2. AMA LOKKO', '', '../links/cases/SO ENERGY V. NAMAS B.pdf', 'Yes', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', '2012', 'high', '', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(461, 'UT BANK LIMITED\r\nVRS.\r\nMODERN MEMARKS,NANA MENSAH NYANOR\r\n', '', '../links/cases/UT BANK V. MODERN MEMARKS.pdf', 'Yes', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', '2012', 'high', '', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(462, 'GHACEM GHANA LIMITED\r\nVRS\r\n1. MUSAH ISSAH\r\n2. RUALFU MUBAH', '', '../links/cases/GHACEM GHANA V. MUSAH ISSAH.pdf', 'Yes', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', '2012', 'high', '', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(463, 'NATHAN T. ANKU\r\nVRS\r\nBARCLAYS BANK GHANA LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/NATHAN ANKU V. BARCLAYS BANK.pdf', 'Yes', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', '2012', 'high', '', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(464, 'MR. JAMES BERVELL\r\nVRS\r\nG4S SECURITY SERVICES GHANA LIMITED', '', '../links/cases/MR. JAMES BERVELL V. G4S SECURITY SERVICES.pdf', 'Yes', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', '2012', 'high', '', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', '', '', '', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(465, 'INTERCONTINENTAL BANK GHANA LIMITED \r\nVRS\r\nPENN UNION INVESTMENTS LTD, \r\nKWESI DSANE -SELBY,  \r\nDAVID SAMUELS, \r\nKWESI AHOMKA -LINDSAY', '', '../links/cases/INTERCONTINENTAL V. PENN UNION.pdf', 'Yes', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', '2012', 'high', '', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '0000-00-00', ''),
(466, 'CHRISLINE FINANCIAL SERVICES\r\nVRS.\r\nGLADYS OWUSUA & 2 ORS', '', '../links/cases/CHRISLINE FINANCE V. GLADYS OWUSUA & ORS.pdf', 'Yes', 'BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU', '2012', 'high', '', 'RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', 'Commercial Court', '0000-00-00', '');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(514, 'GEORGE KOFI GYIMAH   -   PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT\r\nVRS\r\nJ.K. ABROKWA              -   DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT', 'IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF IUDICATURE\r\nIN THE SUPREME COURT\r\nACCRA - GHANA\r\nCORAM; ANSAH, JSC (PRESIDING)\r\nOWUSU (MS), JSC\r\nBAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC	2711, JULY, 2010\r\nARYEETEY, JSC\r\nGBADEGBE, JSC\r\nCIVIL MOTION	NO.18/54/2010\r\nGEORGE KOFI GYIMAH - PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT VRS\r\nJ.K. ABROKWA	- DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT\r\nPractice and procedure— Supreme Court—Jurisdiction— 1992 Constitution, art 131 (2) -Courts Act 1993 (Act 459), s. 4(2) - Supreme Court Rules, Cli 6, rule 7(4) -Special leave— Conditions to grant of\r\nRULING OWUSE] (MS), JSC: \r\nThe applicant herein is under Article 131(2) of the 1992 Constitution; section 4(2) of the Courts Act, Act 459 and rule 7(4) of the Supreme Court Rules Cl. 16 praying for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.\r\nThe application is supported by 19 paragraphed affidavit on which he relied on all the averments contained therein.\r\n \r\nThe Applicant as plaintiff instituted an action in the Circuit Court against the Respondent herein for —\r\n"a.	A declaration that the plaintiff is the only person lawfully entitled to possess and use the land described in his statement of claim as the Land situate, lying and being at Kokompe Accra and bounded on the North West by the Lessor''s land - - - on the south west by the Lessor''s land and covering a approximate area of 0.13 acres more or less."\r\n"b.	General damages for trespass."\r\n"c.	perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his agents from interfering with the plaintiff''s workers on the land."\r\nThis action by the plaintiff was vehemently resisted by the Defendant who counter-claimed for:\r\n"a.	A declaration that he had been granted a prior lease of the land in dispute from the plaintiff''s lessors since 1998 and therefore any subsequent lease of the same property to the plaintiff was void."\r\n"b.	Perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, his agents, principals or any purported lessors from entering upon or carrying on any construction work on the land in dispute."\r\nAt the end of the trial, Judgment was entered for the plaintiff and the Defendant''s counter-claim dismissed.\r\nDissatisfied with the Judgment, the Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. By its Judgment dated 5th day of November 2009 the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the trial court and entered Judgment for the Defendant.\r\nUnder Article 131(b) of the constitution, if the plaintiff wanted to appeal against the Court of Appeal''s Judgment to the Supreme Court, he needed leave of the Court of Appeal.\r\nArticle 131(1) of the constitution reads as follows:\r\n"An appeal shall lie from a judgment of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court —\r\n"(a) as of right in a civil or criminal cause or matter in respect of which an appeal has been brought to the Court of Appeal from a Judgment of the High Court or a Regional Tribunal in the exercise of its original Jurisdiction; or\r\n2\r\n\r\n \r\n"(b) With the leave of the Court of Appeal (e.s.) in any other cause or matter, where the case was commenced in a court lower than the High Court or a Regional Tribunal and where the court of Appeal is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law or is in the public interest.\r\nThe Applicant has in the instant case commenced the action in the Circuit Court.\r\nThe leave to be applied for under Article 131(1) (b), shall be filed with the Registrar of the court below within fourteen days of the date of the decision against which leave to appeal is sought.\r\nThe Applicant''s case is that being seriously aggrieved by the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, he made up his mind to appeal against it but resolved to appoint new lawyers to take up his further appeal.\r\nThe crucial averments in the affidavit and indeed the pillars on which the application stands are:\r\n"8. That when I eventually got introduced to my new lawyers, Messrs Dick K. Anyadi & Associates, they insisted on seeing a copy of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal before deciding what step to take in the matter.\r\nParagraph 9 which turned out to be false reads as follows:\r\n"That by the time I was able to procure the judgment for them to study, the time limited for an application for leave to further appeal to this Honourable court had expired."\r\n10. "That although my said lawyers did file an application for extension of time to apply for leave in the Court of Appeal, they had to withdraw same as there is no provision for extension of time under rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996, C. I. 16."\r\nFeeling strongly about the need to appeal, he has come to this court to pray for special leave to appeal under Article 131(2) of the constitution.\r\nThe said Article states as follows:\r\n"Notwithstanding clause (1) of this article, the Supreme Court may entertain an application for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, and may grant leave accordingly."\r\n3\r\n\r\n \r\nThere is no time frame within which such an application may be brought. It must however be brought timeously. See the case of ALLEN VS SIR ALFRED MAçALPHINE & SONS LTD [1968] AER 547\r\nIn the case of DOLPHYNE (No. 2) VRS SPEEDLINE CO. LTD [1996-97] SCGLR 373, the court said the discretion given to the court is unfettered and the reason for this is not far fetched. The court being the highest court is given this wide discretionary power to do Justice in appropriate cases.\r\nIn holding two indeed the court held that in the exercise of this unfettered discretion, the court is not bound by any rules of practice or procedure or any legislation.\r\nThe principles to be applied as guides on which the Supreme Court might determine whether to grant special leave to appeal or not had been set down in the DOLPHYNE (No. 2) case by the court as follows:\r\n"(a) where there was a prima facie error on the face of the record; or\r\n(b)	a general principle of law had arisen for the first time; or\r\n(c)	a decision by the Supreme Court on the point sought to be appealed against would be advantageous to the public", relying on and approving the ruling of scott 3. sitting in the High Court, Cape Coast in the case of NYIMOH VRS DADZIE [1962] 1 GLR 327"\r\nThe holding in that case amply sets out the conditions upon which special leave may be granted thus:\r\n"Held: Special leave will not be granted unless (a) there is a prima fade error on the face of the record; or (b) a general principle of law has arisen for the first time; or (c) a decision by the Supreme Court on the point sought to be appealed against will be advantageous to the public."\r\nIn arguing the application, counsel was called upon to satisfy the court as to whether his statutory right of appeal having extinguished, there was any need for the application to be considered. He successfully satisfied the court that the fact that his right of appeal under the rules was extinguished was no bar to the application.\r\nIn this wise he referred the court to the case of ANSAH and others VRS ATSEM and Others [2001-2002] SCGLR 906 at 910 where the most respected sister of mine Bamford-Addo J.S.C. (as she then was) quoting from her own ruling in the case of KOTEY VRS KOLETEY [2000] SCGLR 417 said:\r\n \r\n4\r\n \r\n"Since no conditions were imposed under the ruled and the matter was left at large under article 131 (2) and rule 7 (4) of C. I. 16, the grant of special leave is at the discretion of the court and not fettered by any rules of procedure or any law nor should the court lay down a set of iron rules on which the discretion of the court was always obliged to run."\r\nTouching on the merits of the application, counsel submitted that there are errors of law in particular, wrong invocation or misapplication of various legal doctrines and or principles by the Court of Appeal in the judgment, which, if he is able to substantiate, would clearly constitute a prima facie error on the face of the record.\r\nHe argued further that the Court of Appeal fell into error in decreeing specific performance of the alleged contract between the Defendant and the Vendor family when there was no sufficient act of part performance.\r\nAre these the type of errors envisaged under the guiding principle as set out in NYIMOH VRS DADZIE already referred to and approved and applied in DOLPHYNE (No. 2) case?\r\nThe errors complained of are such that the Applicant could have addressed them in an application for ordinary leave to appeal.\r\nThe errors are not prima facie errors on the face of the record for which reason the court must exercise its discretion to grant special leave.\r\nIn the affidavit in support, the applicant averred that it was only when he succeeds in substantiating the errors complained of that they would constitute prima facie errors. This supposes that one would have to read the record before discerning these errors if indeed they are errors of law. The Applicant''s complaint against the Court of APPEAL Judgment is a matter to be decided by an appeal if he had obtained ordinary leave to appeal.\r\nIn an attempt to get this court to grant the leave sought for, the Applicant swore to an affidavit in which he deposed to deliberate falsehood that at the time he obtained copy of the Court of Appeal Judgment, time for filing an application for leave to appeal has run out.\r\nThis deposition has already been referred to.\r\nThe Judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on 5th November 2009 and the instant application was filed on 28th May 2010. In the affidavit in opposition, the Respondent in paragraph 6 averred as follows:\r\n"That I vehemently deny paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support and further say that on the face of Ex "A", the Applicant, obtained his\r\n5\r\n \r\ncopy of the Judgment on 11/11/2009, just six day (sic) after the Judgment was delivered on sh November 2009. - - -\r\nHaving been served with this affidavit, there was no reaction from the Applicant. In court when counsel''s attention was drawn to this paragraph and an explanation was called for, he told the court this was a mistake and that what the Applicant actually meant was proceedings instead of Judgment. What proceedings did he need to file the application for leave? He had the statement of case he filed in the Court of Appeal, that of the Appellant and the record of proceedings from the trial court. All that he needed was the Judgment copy of which he had obtained on 11/11/2009.\r\nThat averment is a deliberate falsehood to put the reason for the delay at the doorstep of the court in order to sway the court in the exercise of its discretion in favour of the Applicant.\r\nWe must express the court''s utter disgust at such conduct of both counsel and litigants that tend to disable the court from exercising its discretion in such matters judicially.\r\nAs officers of the court our avowed duty is to see to it that Justice is done at all cost.\r\nHow does the Applicant expect the court to exercise its discretion in his favour when he is not candid with the court? For this reason alone, the application for special leave ought to be dismissed.\r\nAnother reason for which this court would refuse an application for special leave is the need for prevention of delay in the administration of justice. Delay in pursuing an appeal could adversely affect the acquired rights of others with consequent injustice to them.\r\nI must admit that in the instant application, the delay is not inordinate but each application must be considered on its own facts.\r\nIn paragraph 10 of the affidavit in opposition, the Respondent avers as follows:\r\n"that great hardship, injustice and inconvenience will be caused to me if the court re-opens the right of appeal for the Applicant, because I have acted on the Judgment and have commenced developing the land forming the subject matter of the suit."\r\nOn the whole, no good reasons have been given for which the Applicant must be given this special leave to appeal. In the case of KOTEY VRS KOLETEY already referred to, Atuguba J.S.C. had this to say -\r\n"although an application for normal leave must show some merits in the intended appeal, an application for special leave must do more\r\n6\r\n \r\nthan that; it must also give good and convincing reasons why the application is special. - - -\r\nThe application for the reasons assigned herein fails and same is hereby dismissed.\r\nR. C. OWUSU (MS)\r\nJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT\r\nJ. ANSAH\r\nJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT\r\nP. BAFFOE-BONNIE\r\nJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT\r\nB. T. ARYEETEY\r\nJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT\r\n\\	\\,\r\n\r\nN. S. GBADEGBE\r\nJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT\r\nCOUNSEL:\r\nDICK K. ANYADI FOR THE PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT/APPLICANT.\r\nDANIEL NTIM BOATENG FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT\r\n', '../links/cases/Document (5).pdf', 'Yes', 'OWUSU (MS) JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, ARYEETEY JSC, GBADEGBE', '2010', 'supreme', '<i><font face="Times New Roman" size="2">Practice and procedure - Supreme Court - Jurisdiction - 1992 Constitution, art. 131(2) - Courts Act 1993 (Act 459), s.4(2) - Supreme Court Rules, CI 16, rule 7(4) - Special leave - Conditions to grant of.</font></i><br>', 'ANSAH JSC', 'Civil', '', 'J8/54/2010', '', '', 'supreme', '2010-07-27', ''),
(513, 'YAW OPPONG      - DEFENDANT/APPELLANT\r\nVRS\r\nCHARLES ANARFI  - PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT', 'IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE\r\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE\r\nACCRA 2011\r\nCORAM: ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)\r\nDR. DATE-BAH JSC\r\nOWUSU JSC	1011 FEBRUARY, 2011 ARYEETEY JSC\r\nAKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC\r\nCIVIL APPEAL	SUIT NO. J4/40/10\r\nYAW OPPONG	DEFENDANT/APPELLANT\r\nvrs\r\nCHARLES ANARFI	PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT\r\nPractice and procedure— Contract of sale— Loan agreement features, receipt\r\nas an instrument affecting land.\r\nInterlocutory order—Appeals— Court of Appeal Rules (Cl 19), Rules 9 (1) -\r\nWrongful admission of document— Evidence Act 1975, s.5.\r\n \r\n2\r\nAKOTO-BAMFO JSC:\r\nYaw Oppong, the respondent hereafter referred to as the plaintiff, commenced\r\nan action in the High Court against Charles Anarfi, the appellant now simply\r\nreferred to as the defendant for this relief:\r\n"An order for the defendant to yield vacant possession and hand over House No_\r\nPlot 35 Block AB Patase, West Kumasi to the Plaintiff".\r\nBriefly ,the Plaintiffs case, as gleaned from the accompanying Statement of Claim, was that he purchased House no Plot 35 AB Patase, the subject matter of this appeal from the defendant at an agreed sum of GHC40,000. According to him the transaction was reduced into writing; that even though the 6 month period granted the defendant to yield vacant possession expired; he remained in possession despite repeated demands.\r\nThe defendant resisted the Plaintiff''s claim. The gist of his case as per the Statement of Defence filed was that he sought financial assistance from the Plaintiff in the sum of GHC40,000 cedis to recapitalize his 2nd hand clothing business. He used the house in issue as security. When, however, the Plaintiff''s agent produced a document supposedly evidencing the transaction for his signature, he realized it was a purchase agreement as opposed to the loan transaction. He protested but subsequently signed upon the assurances given by the agent that the terms of the agreement would not be enforced since they were good friends.\r\nAccording to him, the disbursement of the loan was made in tranches and not one\r\n \r\n•\r\n3\r\nintervene. He invited the Plaintiff for a discussion on the matter as a result of\r\nwhich the Plaintiff offered to take interest on the borrowed sum. The issues for\r\ndetermination before the High Court were:\r\n1.	Whether or not the house was sold to the Plaintiff\r\n2.	Whether House No_ 35, Block AB was used as a security for the grant of financial assistance\r\nAfter a full trial, the learned High Court Judge found that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant was a loan transaction and not a purchase agreement. He therefore entered judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff. After an expatiation of the principles of unjust enrichment, he delivered himself in these terms:\r\n"I therefore order the defendant herein based on the principles above cited to pay to the Plaintiff an amount of GHc37000 to the plaintiff with interest at the prevailing Bank rate from the 6th of June when the amount was due to the date of the issuance of the writ till date of payment."\r\nThe Plaintiff registered his protest against the decision by filing a Notice of Appeal consisting of 5 grounds namely:\r\n1.	The Learned Judge erred when he held that there was no burden of proof\r\non the Defendant/Respondent to prove matters canvassed in his defence\r\nto the action\r\n2.	The Learned Judge erred when he held that the transaction between the\r\nparties to the suit was not a sale of House Number Plot 35 Block AB Patasi\r\nand was rather a loan advanced to the Defendant/Respondent in\r\ninstallments.\r\n \r\n4\r\n3.	The Learned Judge erred when he discarded the clear legal effect of Exhibit !A1\r\n4.	The Learned Judge erred when he made findings of fact not borne out by the evidence on record\r\n5.	The Judgment is against the weight of evidence\r\n6.	Additional Grounds of Appeal to be filed on receipt of the record of\r\nproceedings\r\nOn the 26th of March 2009, the Court of Appeal by a 2-1 majority allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and consequential orders made by the learned trial Judge.\r\nDissatisfied, the defendant mounted a challenge against the decision of the Court of Appeal.\r\nHe premised his attack on these grounds:\r\na)	The Learned Judges in the majority failed to consider adequately the effect of the alleged sale document exhibited at the trial in the High Court\r\nb)	The majority judgment is against the weight of the evidence;\r\nc)	Additional grounds may be filed on receipt of the judgment and Proceedings\r\nIt must be noted that no additional grounds were subsequently filed. Arguing Ground A- namely that the learned Judges in the majority failed to consider adequately the effect of the alleged sale document, he submitted that since the whole case for the defendant hinged on Exhibit A whose admission into evidence was challenged albeit unsuccessfully; the said Exhibit could not legally form part of the evidence owing to its erroneous\r\n \r\n\r\nadmission. He contended that the admission of Exhibit A into evidence\r\noccasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.\r\nAccording to him, both the trial court and the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Exhibit A was a receipt. He submitted that since Exhibit A was an instrument affecting land, non registration thereof was fatal and therefore constituting an instance in which the Court could properly depart from the findings of fact concurrently made by both the trial and appellate Courts.\r\nIn reply learned Counsel for the Plaintiff contended that the submission should not be countenanced since the defendant failed to appeal against the ruling in the course of the trial; and that having failed to avail himself of the opportunity, it was too late in the day for him to raise same.\r\nSection 6 of the Evidence Decree NRCD 323 provides:\r\n1)	In every action and at every stage thereof, any objection to the\r\nadmissibility of evidence by a party affected thereby shall be made at\r\nthe time the evidence was offered.\r\n2)	Every objection to the admissibility of evidence shall be recorded and\r\nruled upon by the Court as a matter of Course.\r\nUndoubtedly, the Counsel for the defendant complied with the rules, his objection was however overruled.\r\nThe Court in delivering its ruling stated as follows "this Court shall consider the validity or otherwise of the said document as judgment; at most the document is just like a receipt and the intention behind the\r\n \r\n6\r\nmaker of the document is another matter to be determined by the Court"\r\nWhat remedies were open to the defendant then?\r\nHe should have appealed within 21days of the date of the ruling since it was clearly an interlocutory order; for as provided for under Rule 9 (1) (a) of Cl 19 the Court of Appeal Rules,:\r\n9(1) subject to any other enactment governing appeals, an application shall not be brought after the expiration of\r\n(a) 21 days in the case of an appeal against an interlocutory decision.\r\nThe defendant cannot be heard to complain. Assuming Exhibit A was wrongly admitted could that fact by itself result in a reversal?\r\nThe answer is in the negative; for the Evidence Act Sec 5 (2) sets out the circumstances under which a judgment will be set aside on account of an erroneous admission of evidence.\r\n5.2 In determining whether an erroneous admission of evidence resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice, the Court shall consider\r\na)	Whether the trial court relied on that inadmissible evidence, and\r\nb)	Whether an objection to, or a motion to exclude or to strike out, the evidence could and should have been made at an earlier stage in the action, and\r\n \r\n7\r\nc)	Whether the objection or motion could and should have been so\r\nstated as to make clear the ground or grounds of the objection or\r\nmotion, and\r\nd)	Whether the admitted evidence should have been excluded on\r\none of the grounds stated in connection with the objection or\r\nmotion, and\r\ne)	Whether the decision would have been otherwise but for the\r\nerroneous admission of evidence.\r\nIt is therefore evident that the only criterion for a reversal is that the\r\nerroneous admission must have resulted in a substantial miscarriage\r\nof justice.\r\nFactors which should weigh on the Court in arriving at such a decision\r\nare clearly set out above.\r\nIt is necessary at this stage to consider whether Exhibit A was erroneously admitted into evidence. In other words what was the exact nature of Exhibit A; was it a receipt as found by both the trial Court and the Court of Appeal, or an instrument affecting land, the non registration of which is fatal and therefore cannot be the basis of a judicial decision? Agyei Osae V Adjeifio 2007/2008 SCGLR 499.\r\nExhibit A was described as a sale agreement; the parties were described\r\n \r\n8\r\nmatter of the sale was clearly stated. Indeed in the 3rd paragraph appears the following: "the vendor agreed to sell his above described property at the total cost of C400,000.00 (FOUR HUNDRED MILLIONS) and the said vendee (Yaw Oppong) has agreed to purchase the said House No plot_ 35 Block AB Patase-West-Kumasi".\r\nOne would say the document speaks for itself. The said paragraph leaves none in any doubt as to not only its form i.e. a sale transaction but equally that the property on plot no 35 Patasi was the subject of the transaction. There was an agreement on the contract sum\r\nThe defendant does not deny that on the face of Exhibit A, the transaction could be described as a sale agreement. His case was that he should be allowed to lead extrinsic evidence, as it were, to contradict the terms of the written document. The Court of Appeal dealt adequately with the issue and came to a conclusion and rightly so in our view that there was a sale agreement and that the circumstances of this case do not afford an exception to the general rule as lucidly stated in Wilson v. Brobbey (1974 1 GLR.250 at 251 in these terms:\r\n"Where parties have embodied the terms of their contract in a written\r\ndocument extrinsic evidence or oral evidence will be inadmissible to add\r\nto, vary, subtract from or contradict the terms of the written\r\ninstrument"\r\nIndeed in Gallie v. Lee (1969) 2 Ch. 17 at p. 36, C.A. Lord Denning M.R.\r\n \r\n9\r\n"Whenever a man of full age and understanding, who can read and write, signs a legal document which is put before him for signature—by which I mean a document which, it is apparent on the face of it, is intended to have legal consequences—then, if he does not take the trouble to read it but signs it as it is, relying on the word of another as to its character or contents or effect, he cannot be heard to say that it is not his document".\r\nIt is therefore settled that a party of full age and understanding would normally be bound by his signature whether he reads, understands it or not particularly in the absence of the requisite evidence that the other party misled him.\r\nOn the nature of EXH A we are of the view that it is a receipt as found by both the trial court and the Court of Appeal.\r\nIn Donkor v. Alhassan 1987-88 2GLR 253 at 256 Ampiah JA as he then was faced with a similar situation stated "These receipts were not meant to transfer, by themselves any interests in land. They only evidenced payment in pursuance of an agreement to transfer an interest in the land." Exh A was therefore not required to be registered under the Land Registry Act, 1962(Act 122 Sec.24 (I) to be effective.\r\nExhibit A was not tendered to prove the respondent''s title to the property The learned Judge rightly overruled the objection.\r\nIt is pertinent to note that in his submissions before the High Court; Counsel for the respondent (now appellant) described Exhibit A as a receipt.\r\n \r\nI\r\n \r\n10\r\nAt page 60, of the Record of Proceedings, this is what he stated "Even granted that the Plaintiff and the defendant duly signed Exhibit A; at best Exhibit A can be regarded as a receipt evidencing a loan that has given to the defendant".\r\nThe appeal fails on this ground and is hereby dismissed.\r\nLearned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence adduced. According to him contrary to the view held by the majority in the Court of Appeal, the defendant''s evidence on the nature of the transaction was amply corroborated.\r\nThere is a wealth of authorities on the burden allocated to an appellant who alleges in his Notice of Appeal that the decision is against the weight of the evidence led.\r\nEven though it is ordinarily within province of the trial court to evaluate the veracity or otherwise of a witness, it is incumbent upon an appellant court in such a case, to analyse the entire record of appeal, take into account the testimonies and all documentary evidence adduced at the trial before it arrives at its decision, so as to satisfy itself that, on the preponderance of the probabilities, the conclusions of the trial Judge are reasonable or amply supported by the evidence. Tuakwa v Boson 2001/2002 SCGLR 61.\r\nIn Charity v EMS 2007/2008 SCGLR 985, Georgina Wood CJ stated "the well-established rule is that an appeal is by way of rehearing and an appellate Court is therefore entitled look at the entire evidence and come to the conclusions on both the facts and the law.\r\n \r\na\r\n \r\n11\r\nLearned Counsel for the appellant submitted that contrary to the majority view of the Court of Appeal that the defendant''s case was not corroborated; the pieces of evidence offered by the defendant''s wife amply corroborated the defendant''s case.\r\nA reading of the record of proceedings show that this submission is not rooted in the record. The defendant called one witness, his wife, who obviously had no personal knowledge of the transaction. An excerpt of the cross-examination is relevant:\r\nQ. You said that you were not part of the negotiations and you said\r\nThat your husband asked for a loan so the issue of the loan was what\r\nyour husband told you, it was your husband who told you he had\r\nbeen given a loan.\r\nA. Yes.\r\nQ. And it is your husband who told you that there a balance of\r\nC30,000.000.00 cedis.\r\nA. Yes.\r\nThe evidence given by the witness for the defendant clearly did not advance the frontiers of the defendant''s case since his wife admittedly had no personal knowledge of the events as stipulated under section 60 of the Evidence Act, 1973.\r\nAgain in both his Statement of Defence and evidence before the High Court\r\n \r\n12\r\nOne Nana Agyapahene was named as having intervened in the matter and having succeeded in getting the plaintiff to agree to exact some interest on the loan. This piece of evidence was strenuously denied by the plaintiff; yet the defendant failed to call Nana Agyapahene. He is a material witness whose evidence would have assisted the Court immensely. Failure to call him clearly dealt a big blow to the defendant''s case.\r\nThe Court of Appeal, after reviewing the evidence on record and the decision of the learned Judge of the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that the appeal lodged against the decision of the High Court, which entered judgment for the appellant herein, ought to succeed.\r\nKanyoke JA stated as follows:\r\n"On the evidence and for the reasons given herein, I have come to the conclusion that the appellant had sufficiently established on a preponderance of probabilities and satisfied me that the judgment of the court below is clearly and manifestly and overwhelmingly against the weight of evidence. The serious omission by the trial judge to reject as inadmissible oral or extrinsic evidence to subtract vary and contradict the clear, and express terms of and intention of the parties in Exhibit A, coupled with his erroneous placing of the burden of proof of issues raised by the respondent in his pleadings on the appellant and exacerbated by his cursory scrutiny and evaluation and assessment of the totality of the evidence laid before him has resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice in this case".\r\n \r\n13\r\nWe are satisfied that the conclusions of the Court of Appeal were amply\r\nsupported by the evidence on record. We would accordingly dismiss the\r\nappeal.\r\n[SGD]	V. AKOTO-BAMFO [MRS.]\r\n[JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT]\r\n[SGD]	W. A. ATUGUBA\r\n[JUSTICE OF THE SUPEME COURT]\r\n[SGD]	DR S. K. DATE-BAH\r\n[JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT]\r\n[SGD]	R. C. OWUSU(MS.)\r\n[JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT]\r\n[SGD]	B. T. ARYEETEY\r\n[JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT]\r\nCOUNSEL: \r\nKWASI AFRIFA FOR THE APPELLANT.\r\nYAW BOAFOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.\r\n, 41ST • I li SOFT\r\n1"I 1.2r rr..ir\r\n011ifitilAr COULT or 5 n MU\r\n_\r\n', '../links/cases/Document (4).pdf', 'Yes', 'DR. DATE-BAH JSC, OWUSU JSC, ARYEETEY JSC, AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC', '2011', 'supreme', '<i><font face="Times New Roman" size="2">Practice and procedure - Contract of sale - Loan agreement features, receipt as an instrument affecting land.<br>Interlocutory order - Appeals - Court of Appeal Rules (CI 19), Rules 9(1) - Wrongful admission of document - Evidence Act 1975, s.5.</font></i><br>', 'ATUGUBA ,J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/40/10', '', '', 'supreme', '2011-02-10', '');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(512, 'YAA ANTWI     -    PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT\r\nVRS\r\nN.T.H.C           -    DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT', 'IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF IUDICATURE\r\nIN THE SUPREME COURT\r\nACCRA -GHANA\r\nCORAM: AKUFFO (MS) JSC (PRESIDING)\r\nDATE-BAH (DR) JSC\r\nADINYIRA (MRS) JSC\r\nOWUSU (MS) JSC\r\nDOTSE JSC\r\nCIVIL APPEAL\r\nNO.14/12/2008\r\n4TH FEBRUARY, 2009.\r\nYAA ANTWI	PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT\r\nVRS\r\nN.T.H.0	DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT\r\nContract— Invitation to treat— Offer and Acceptance— factors necessary to distinguish invitation to treat from offer are definiteness and finality of\r\nproposed terms.\r\nInterest— Payable from date obligation of money became due.\r\n \r\n\r\nDR. DATE-BAH JSC: This case calls for resort to the basic analytical tools for determining the formation of contracts, including offer, invitation to treat, acceptance and intention to create legal relations, which are to be found set out in the earlier chapters of textbooks, and practice books, on the law of contract. To our mind, the outcome from the application of those tools is clear and self-evident. We are, thus, surprised that this case has had to travel this far for its resolution.\r\nThe plaintiff at one time worked for the defendant as head of its Legal Department. Whilst still in its employment, she received the following letter from the defendant.\r\n"17 January 2005\r\nMs. Yaa Antwi\r\nNTHC Limited ACCRA\r\nDear Madam\r\nOFFER FOR SALE — HOUSE NO. 4 PLATEAU CLOSE\r\nEAST LEGON EXTENSION\r\nThe Board of Directors at the emergency Board meeting held on Friday, 31 December 2004 proposed to sell the Company''s houses being occupied by the Management Staff.\r\n \r\nIn this regard, you are being given the first offer to purchase the above- mentioned house at the cost price of US $70,307 or its Cedi equivalent. Payment shall be within 6 months.\r\nIf you are interested, you are to indicate, in writing, to the undersigned by Monday, 31 January 2005.\r\nYours faithfully\r\nGladys A. Odoi (Ms)\r\nBoard Secretary\r\nCc Managing Director"\r\nThe plaintiff, in reply to this letter, stated in a letter dated 31st January, 2005 that:\r\n"I refer to the offer by the Board to sell the above-referenced house to me as contained in your letter of January 17, 2005 referenced NTHC/ADMI/GEN/.\r\nI accept the offer to purchase House No. 4 Plateau Close at th° cost price of US $ 70,307 or its cedis equivalent and to make payment within the stipulated 6 months.\r\n \r\nIt would be greatly appreciated if details of bank accounts into which payment may be made are provided for the benefit of the hous 2 loan company."\r\nThere was no further correspondence between the parties until the dispatch of the following letter, dated 71h November, 2005 by the defendant to the plaintiff:\r\n"Dear Ms. Antwi\r\nRE: OFFER FOR SALE - HOUSE NO 4 PLATEAU CLOSE, EAST LEGON\r\nI am directed by the Board Chairman to inform you that, as was previously communicated to you following extensive deliberations on the above matter, the Board of Directors have decided to withdraw the offer for sale of the said property to enable the Company house its new management staff.\r\nAny inconvenience is very much regretted."\r\n \r\nThis letter was signed on behalf of the defendant by its Deputy Managing Director.\r\n \r\nIn the meantime, the plaintiff had left the employment of the defendant and had begun working for a different employer from 8th August, 2005. This fact was relied upon by the defendant in its next letter to the plaintiff, dated 101h November, 2005, which sought to require the plaintiff to vacate the house in dispute. The letter advised the plaintiff to vacate the house, following her resignation from the employment of the defendant.\r\nOn these facts, the plaintiff brought action against the defendant, claiming that the exchange of letters in January 2005 resulted in an agreement that the defendant would sell to the plaintiff House No. 4 Plateau Close, East Legon Extension for the sum of US $ 70,307 or its equivalent in cedis and that the plaintiff would pay the purchase price within 6 months of the offer. She averred that though she had requested of the defendant the particulars of the bank account into which to pay the purchase price of the property, the defendant had neglected to furnish such particulars. The plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement made in January 2005 and a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from ejecti-ig the plaintiff from the property.\r\nThe defence proferred by the defendant was that its letter of 17th January 2005 was not an offer, but, according to its statement of defence, "only an invitation to staff to make offers to purchase the premises, the final decisions on the matter rested with Defendant". The defendant thus denied the existence of any enforceable agreement\r\nbetween the parties.\r\nThe main issue in this case, therefore, hinges on the interpretation to be put on the letter of it January, in its context. Was the letter an offer or a mere invitation to treat? The learned trial judge, Ofoe J., as he then was, considered the letter to be a mere invitation to treat. In his judgment, he laid emphasis on the use of the word\r\n \r\n\r\n"proposed" in relation to "sell" and thus persuaded himself that the company''s proposal to sell was not a definite enough offer of the property to the plaintiff. He therefore dismissed the plaintiff''s action, holding that no contract had been formed. Ofoe J. explained his decision thus (at p. 86 of the Record):\r\n"The letter provides that at the Board Meeting the Board "proposed to sell the company''s houses". I have no reason for interpreting the word proposed other than what it is and what it means. The last paragraph also provides:\r\n"If you are interested, you are to indicate in writing to the undersigned by Monday 31St January, 2005."\r\nCan it be said that this last paragraph read together with other paragraphs in Exhibit A, Exhibit A was a firm offer of the property to the plaintiff? I think not. It is my view that Exhibit A even though the word "offer" is used, was initiating negotiations with the staff on the proposal of the defendant to dispose of their properties. The request for plaintiff to show interest in the property I see it as asking the plaintiff rather to make the offer. It is my view that plaintiff''s response declaring her interest as she did in Exhibit B cannot be an acceptance of an offer by the defendant but rather offering for the defendant''s acceptance her interest in the purchase of the property."\r\nOn appeal by the plaintiff to the Court of Appeal, the judgment of the trial court was reversed. The Court of Appeal, in a judgment written by Marful-Sau IA, arrived at\r\n \r\nthe conclusion that the letter of 17th January contained an offer. The learned judge expressed himself thus (at p. 129 of the Record):\r\n"From the way Exhibit A is written and its content as a whole, I am satisfied that it qualifies to be an offer properly called in contract. The letter was not conducting any enquiry. It is clear from the body that a specific house, House No. 4 Plateau Close, East Legon Extension was offered to Appellant to purchase at a quoted price and to be paid within six months. The letter only requested the Appellant to indicate her interest as to whether she accept the terms offered in Exhibit A or not."\r\nWe are, in this court, called upon to determine which of the two lower courts was right in its interpretation of the letter of 17th January. The grounds of appeal filed by the defendant in this court against the Court of Appeal''s decision are as follows:\r\n"a.	The Court of Appeal erred when it held that Exhibit	and Exhibit B amounted to a contract.\r\nb.	The Court of Appeal erred when it decreed an Order of Specific Performance in the circumstances of this case.\r\nC.	The Court of Appeal erred when it ordered Appellant to refund to Respondent all rents paid by the Respondent to Appellant.\r\nd. Further and/or in the alternative the Court of Appeai erred when it retrospectively decreed specific performance of the contract without awarding Plaintiff interest on the purchase price of $70,307.00"\r\n \r\n\r\nBefore resolving the issue of interpretation raised in ground (a), however, it would be useful to remind ourselves, in outline, of the principles to be applied in distinguishing between offers and invitations to treat.\r\nBasically, an offer is an indication in words or by conduct by an offeror that he or she is prepared to be bound by a contract in the terms expressed in the offer, if the offeree communicates to the offeror his or her acceptance of those terms. Accordingly, the offer has to be definite and final and must not leave significant terms open for further negotiation. By significant, we here mean terms that are essential to the bargain contemplated. It is important to emphasise the proposition that the mere acceptance of an offer is sufficient to turn the offer into a contract, if there is consideration for it, together with an intention to create legal relations.\r\nIt is this need for finality and definiteness which leads to the analytical need lor the concept of invitation to treat. If a communication during negotiations is not the final expression of an alleged offeror''s willingness to be bound, it may be interpreted as an invitation to the other party to use it as a basis for formulating a proposal emanating from him or her that is definite enough to qualify as an offer. Thus the indefinite communication may be what generates an offer from the other side. An invitation to treat is thus to be distinguished from an offer on the basis of the proposal''s lack of an essential characteristic of an offer, namely, its finality which gives a capacity to the offeree to transform the offer into a contract by the mere communication of his or her assent to its terms. Thus Chitty on Contracts (28th Edition, 1999) Vol. 1 para. 2-007 at p. 93 states that:\r\n \r\n"A communication by which a party is invited to make an offer is commonly called an invitation to treat. It is distinguishable from an offer primarily on the ground that it is not made with the intention that it is to become binding as soon as the person to whom it is addressed simply communicates his assent to its terms."\r\nA case relied on by the appellant, Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 All ER 972, is illustrative of a communication during "negotiations" which was not definite and final enough to be treated as an offer and therefore was rightly categorized as an invitation to treat. The case involved the tenant of a council house in Manchester, England, who wanted to buy the house from the council. In the middle of the process for the purchase of the property, following local government elections in May 1971, the local council changed its policy and decided not to proceed with the sale of any house in respect of which there had not yet been an exchange of contracts. The correspondence between the tenant and the council befoie this reversal of policy was as follows:\r\nAfter the city council had adopted a policy of selling houses to its tenants, the City Treasurer, following a request made by the tenant in this case for details of the price of the house he was renting and the mortgage terms available, had written on 10th February 1971 to the tenant stating that the council "may be prepared to sell the house to you at the purchase price 2,725 pounds less 20% - 2,180 pounds (freehold)." The letter then set out the mortgage terms likely to be made available and continued:\r\n"If you would like to make formal application to buy your Council house please complete the enclosed application form and return it to me as soon as possible."\r\n \r\n\r\nAccordingly, the tenant duly completed an application form with the heading "Application to buy a council house", except that he did not fill in the purchase price, and returned it to the council. The form concluded with the statement: "I.. now\r\nwish to purchase my Council house. The above answers are correct and I agree that\r\nthey shall be the basis of the arrangements regarding the purchase..." The tenant followed up his application form a few days later with a letter dated 18th March 1971 in which he said: "I would be obliged if you will carry on with the purchase as per my application already in your possession." Before contracts for the house could be exchanged, the May elections intervened which led to the reversal of the council''s\r\npolicy on sales of houses to tenants, to which we have already alluded. The council\r\nsubsequently wrote to the tenant to advise him that his application for a purchase of a council house could not be processed any further. When the tenant contended that the City Treasurer''s letter of February 1971 was an offer and that his completed application form of March 1971 was an acceptance and he therefore brought action for specific performance of the contract, the House of Lords held that the City Treasurer''s letter was at most an invitation to treat and that it was the tenant''s\r\napplication form which was rather the offer. Lord Russell of Killowen declared (at p. 980) that:\r\n"My Lords, I cannot bring myself to accept that a letter which says that the possible vendor ''May be prepared to sell the house to you'' can be regarded as an offer to sell capable of acceptance so as to constitute a\r\ncontract. The language simply does not permit such a construction."\r\nWe do not agree with the defendant/respondent/appellant in this case when it asserts in its Statement of Case (paragraph 10) that its case is on all fours with the Gibson case. There is no question that the City Treasurer''s letter lacked finality. It could not be turned into a contract by mere acceptance. There were still significant\r\n \r\n\r\nterms which needed to be agreed upon. This is in marked contrast with the facts of this case where the letter from the defendant/respondent/appellant proposed the sale to the plaintiff of an identified property at a price certain. What was left to be communicated were the details of the bank account into which the price was to be paid. This was a subsidiary question which did not affect the finality of what we construe to be the offer contained in the letter.\r\nThe appellant also strenuously sought to make a distinction between the language construed to be an offer in fofle vZanyo [1992] 2 GLR 475 and the language in the present case. This contention was in rebuttal of the view taken by the Court of Appeal that the decision in the Fofle case should lead to the letter of 17 th January 2005 being construed as an offer. Marful-Sau JA had said in the court below, after quoting the text of the offer in the Fofle case, that:\r\n"Indeed comparing the above letter which was held to be a valid offer to Exhibit A in the instant appeal it will be untenable to hold that Exhibit A is not a valid offer. The above letter suggested that .,hould the offeree indicate his acceptance, a further meeting was to be held, yet the Supreme Court affirmed the holding by both the trial High Court and the Court of Appeal that it was a valid offer."\r\nIn the Foffe case, what the plaintiff contended was an offer was in the following terms:\r\n".1 am prepared to offer the house to you for sale. The selling price is c75,000. If this is acceptable to you, please confirm to enable us hold a\r\n \r\nmeeting with your solicitor on the matter. Hoping to hear from you soon."\r\nThe learned trial judge, Lutterodt J, as she then was, and the Court of Appeal construed this language to be a valid offer. The disagreement in that case between the Court of Appeal and the trial judge was as to whether there had been any acceptance of this offer. The appellant in the present case in its Statement of Case argues that the distinction between what was construed to be an offer in the Fofie case and the alleged offer in this case lies in the fact that the parties in the Fofle case had had an earlier discussion and the quotation set out above was from a confirmatory letter. The appellant''s argument is set out as follows in its Statement of Case (para. 14):\r\n"The said Exhibit B was thus written in furtherance of the earlier discussions between the parties and was only to formalize the arlier discussion. It is on this basis that all the Courts from the High Court through to the Supreme Court, took the position that Exhibit B, the confirmation letter, was an offer. This is clearly distinguishable from this case where there is no evidence on record that the Parties had had any initial discussion on the subject and that Exhibit A herein was a confirmation of any such previous discussion. My Lords, being "prepared to offer .. for sale" is very different from "proposing to sell!! It is therefore faltering, with respect, to say that the instant cast is on all fours with the Fofie case, for the Fofie case to be used as a measuring rod for the fortunes of the instant suit."\r\nThe respondent answers the appellant''s point on the Fofie case as follows (in para.27 of its Statement of Case):\r\n \r\n"...As regards the argument that the Fofie case is distinguishable from the instant case because there had been previous discussions between the parties\r\nin that case, it is our submission that whether or not there had been previous discussions is quite irrelevant to the interpretation of Exhibit A and that what\r\nis important is that the language of that letter expresses and conveys an intention to contract."\r\nWe find this riposte by the respondent persuasive. Whilst recognising that the decision as to whether any particular set of language and context amounts to an offer or an invitation to treat depends on the detailed facts of specific cases, we also consider that the Fofie case provides a useful pointer regarding how to interpret the alleged offer in this case. In our view, the statement that: "The Board of Directors at the emergency Board meeting held on Friday, 31 December 2004 proposed to sell the Company''s houses being occupied by the Management Staff," when read together with the two sentences that follow it that: "In this regard, you are being given the first offer to purchase the above-mentioned house at the cost price of US $70,307 or its Cedi equivalent. Payment shall be within 6 months." and the totality of the context within which the transaction took place, can hardly be given any other interpretation than that it was an offer by the defendant/respondent/appellant company. The appellant''s argument that the use of the word "proposed" in the text quoted above robbed the alleged offer of "definitiveness" and therefore rendered it an invitation to treat is weak, because of the existence in that same text of the next two sentences. In those sentences, as will have been noted, the appellant itself characterises its proposal as an "offer". Although this is not a determinative factor, it is an important indication of what the appellant intended.\r\n \r\n\r\nthe introductory sentence does not, therefore, detract from the definiteness of the offer contained in the next two sentences. In any case, the expression "proposed to sell", in its context, does not necessarily indicate an absence of an intention to make a final proposal capable of being turned into a contract, or, in other words, an offer. We are thus somewhat mystified by the decision of the learned trial judge. We do not agree with him that the letter of 17th January was an invitation to treat. The defendant/respondent/appellant clearly gives to the plaintiff ''the first offer'' to purchase its house. We thus hold that the letter of 17th January constituted an offer, and not an invitation to treat, and that this offer was converted into a contract by the respondent''s acceptance letter of 31''t January 2005. From the facts set out above, there was clearly an intention to create legal relations and the respondent''s undertaking to pay the purchase price was consideration enough to result in the formation of a contract.\r\nNext, we will quickly and easily dispose of ground (b) of the grounds of appeal. The appellant''s grievance expressed there was that the Court of Appeal er ed in decreeing an order of specific performance in the circumstances of this case. Expatiating on this in its Statement of Case, the appellant argued that the doctrine of part performance could not avail the respondent to warrant specific performance. We agree with the reply of the respondent that the doctrine of part-performance is irrelevant, on the facts of this case. We have held that a contract was formed by the exchange of letters in January 2005. This contract relating to land is evidenced in writing. Therefore, there is no need to resort to a doctrine of part-performance. Contracts for the sale of land are preeminently those in relation to which the n.medy of specific performance is appropriate and typically applied by the courts. As Chitty on Contracts (28th Edition) puts it (in para 28-007):\r\n \r\n\r\n"The law takes the view that the purchaser of a particular piece of land or of\r\na particular house (however ordinary) cannot, on the vendor''s breach, obtain a satisfactory substitute, so that specific performance is available to him."\r\nIt is trite law that the equitable remedy of specific performance will be granted, where damages are not an adequate remedy. More recent case-law has tended to state the law in terms of whether it is just in all the circumstances of a particular case for the aggrieved party to be confined to a remedy of damages. However the\r\nquestion is framed, though, there is little doubt that contracts for the sale of land qualify for the remedy, ceteris paribus. We therefore think there is no merit in this ground of appeal and it is dismissed.\r\nFinally, we will consider grounds (c) and (d) of the grounds of appeal. It will be recalled that these complained that the Court of Appeal''s order to the appellant to refund to the respondent all rents paid by the respondent to the appellant was in error and, further, that the Court of Appeal erred when it retrospectively decreed specific performance of the contract without awarding the plaintiff interest on the purchase price. The appellant contends, in its Statement of Case, that if the respondent had paid the consideration for the contract, which we have found to exist, when it was due, or even at the commencement of the suit, the appellant could have invested that price. The appellant further argues that judicial notice should be taken of the notorious fact that in Ghana property values appreciate. It would thus be unfair for the respondent to pay what is in effect a 2005 price for the property today without the payment of interest to compensate the appellant for the difference in the value of the property between 2005 and currently. The appellant argues that since the price of US $ 70,307 should have been paid in August 2005, "By denying the Appellant interest on the purchase price (and assuming there was a binding contract which is denied), the Respondent had been unjustly enriched\r\nthereby." (Para. 18 of the Statement of Case.)\r\n \r\nIn reply, the respondent maintains in her Statement of Case that the Court of Appeal was not in error in making the consequential order, after delivering its judgment, that any rents paid by the respondent after November 2005 should be refunded to her, after she had paid the purchase price. She explains that the circumstances that had led to that order were the need to reverse the High Court''s order, made after its judgment, which required the respondent, as part of the terms on which the High Court judgment was stayed, to pay cl,500,000 (GHc15O) monthly to the appellant. She argued that since the Court of Appeal had found that she was the equitable owner of the property from January 2005, there was no obligation on her part to pay any rent to the appellant. The reversal of the High Court''s order was thus necessary to reflect the Court of Appeal''s reversal of the High Court''s decision that there was no contract between the parties. We have no difficulty in agreeing with this view and we thus affirm the Court of Appeal''s order that any rents paid to appellant after the High Court''s judgment should be refunded after the order of specific performance has been executed.\r\nRegarding the distinct issue of the payment of interest on the purchase price, which had been computed with a completion date in 2005 in mind, the counter-argument put up by the respondent is that the appellant failed to provide the respondent with the bank particulars that she had requested to enable her to make payment of the purchase price. Further, she argued that in none of the papers filed before the Court of Appeal was there a claim of interest on the basis of which the Court would have had jurisdiction to award interest in the appellant''s favour.\r\nIn considering what merit there is in this latter argument against the payment of interest, we consider it helpful to refer to the following passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Butt v Chapel H/il Properties & Anor [2003-2004] SCGLR 636 at p. 652:\r\n \r\n"Once this Court holds that there was, in effect, an implied loan transaction between the Plaintiff and the first Defendant or the Defendants, the Court is\r\nobliged to exercise its statutory power to award interest on the loan implied in\r\norder to preserve the value of the capital originally borrowed. Justice requires that on the facts of this case interest be awarded to the Plaintiff,\r\neven if not expressly claimed. The High Court, under Order 63 rule 6 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1954 LN140A, has authority to make any order which it considers necessary for doing justice, whether such order has been expressly asked for by the person entitled to the benefit of the order or not. This is an appropriate case for the Supreme Court to exercise this power of the High Court, pursuant to section 2(4) of the Courts Act 1993 under which the Supreme Court has all the powers, authority and jurisdiction vested in any court established by the Constitution or any other law."\r\nAlthough the Order 63 rule 6 of the repealed High Court Rules referred to in the\r\npassage quoted above appears not to have been re-enacted in the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (CI 47), we believe that the High Court has an inherent jurisdiction to make such consequential orders as are necessary for doing justice, even if the beneficiary of such order has not expressly requested it. The St.:nreme\r\nCourt would thus vicariously also have this power.\r\nIn our view, the effect of ordering specific performance of the contract is that the purchaser becomes liable to pay the price at the contractually stipulated due date. On the facts of this case, the price was to be paid within 6 months. Since the acceptance letter was dated 31st January, the due date was no later than the end of\r\nJuly 2005. Correspondingly, the vendor is obliged to convey its interest in the purchaser with effect from the same date. Prior to conveyance and after the\r\n \r\nfollows from the analysis above that the purchaser should be liable to pay interest on the purchase price from the date it was due until the date of judgment in order to preserve the economic value of the purchase price.\r\nThis Court has power under Rule 1 of the Court (Award of Interest and Post Judgment Interest) Rules 2005 (CI 52) to award interest "on a sum of money due to a party" in an action and we consider that this case is an appropriate one in which to exercise the power in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice. As the appellant points out, there is danger of unjust enrichment on the part of the purchaser (i.e., the respondent) if the power to award interest is not exercised. Accordingly, whilst confirming the Court of Appeal''s order of specific performance, we also order, pursuant to Rule 1 of CI 52, that the respondent should pay interest to the appellant on the cedi equivalent of the price of US $ 70,307 from Vt August 2005 till today at the bank rate prevailing today. We do not consider that the neglect of the appellant to furnish the respondent with the particulars of the bank account into which the price should be paid is sufficient reason for the appellant to forfeit its entitlement to interest. That neglect was in the heat of a legal dispute which has only now been finally settled. Since specific performance is an equitable remedy, its enforcement should not lead to the inflicting of hardship on the appellant. As Lord Parker has said:\r\n"Indeed, the dominant principle has always been that equity will only grant specific performance if, under all the circumstances, it is just and equitable so\r\nto do." (See Stickney vKeeb/e[1915] AC 386 at p. 419).\r\nIt is our considered view that in the circumstances of this case, it would only be just and equitable for the contract of January 2005 to be specifically enforced if the value of the purchase price under it is preserved through the payment of interest by the\r\n \r\nrespondent to the appellant, along the lines already explained. Accordingly, ground (d) of the appellant''s grounds of appeal is upheld and the respondent is 1.o pay interest on the purchase price to the appellant at the bank rate prevailing today, as already indicated, on the purchase price from 1st August 2005 till today. After judgment, interest will remain payable, by operation of law, till date of final payment, pursuant to Rule 2 of CI 52. Subject to this, the appeal is dismissed.\r\nDR. S. K. DATE-BAH\r\n(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)\r\nI agree\r\nS. A. B AKUFFO (MS)\r\n(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)\r\nI agree\r\nS.O.A. ADINYIRA (MRS)\r\n(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)\r\n \r\nI agree\r\nR.C. OWUSU (MS)\r\n(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)\r\nI agree\r\nJ. V. M. DOTSE\r\n(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)\r\nCOUNSEL:\r\nBRIGHT OKYERE-AGYEKU FOR THE APPELLANT DOE TSIKATA FOR THE APPELLANT\r\n', '../links/cases/Document (3).pdf', 'Yes', 'DATE-BAH (DR) JSC, ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC, OWUSU (MS) JSC, DOTSE JSC', '2009', 'supreme', '<i><font face="Times New Roman" size="2">Contract - Invitation to treat - Offer and Acceptance - Factors necessary to distinguish invitation to treat from offer are definiteness and finality of proposed terms.<br>Interest - Payable from date obligation of money became due.</font></i><br>', 'AKUFFO (MS), J.S.C', 'Civil', '', 'J4/12/2008', '', '', 'supreme', '2009-02-04', '');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(511, 'MRS CHRISTIANA EDITH AGYAKWA ABOA   -  PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT\r\nVRS\r\nMAJOR KEELSEN(RTD)                             -  DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT\r\nAND\r\n1. OKYEAME YIMA\r\n2. TEYE TIMOTHY DOKU                          -  PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT\r\nVRS\r\nMAJOR KEELSEN(RTD)                             -  DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT', 'IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF IUDICATURE\r\nIN THE SUPREME CORT\r\nACCRA, A.D. 2011\r\nCORAM: DR. DATE-BAH JSC (PRESIDING)\r\nANSAH JSC\r\nDOTSE JSC	16"'' MARCH, 2011 BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC\r\nAKOTO-BAMFO (MRS.) JSC\r\n \r\nCIVIL APPEAL\r\nMRS CHRISTIANA EDITH AGYARWA ABOA\r\nV rs\r\nMAJOR KEELSEN (RTD)-AND\r\n \r\nSUIT NO: J4/11/2010 PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT\r\nDEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT\r\n \r\n1.	OKYEAMEYIMA	PLAINT IFF/RES POND ENT/RESPONIJENT\r\n2.	TEYE TIMOTHY DOKU\r\nVRS\r\nMAJOR KEELSEN (RTD)	DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT\r\nLand law and Conveyancing— Title to Land— Declaration of— Sale of land by vendor to a second grantee— Principle of nemo dot quad non habet-Application of\r\nPractice and Procedure— Judgment of Trial Court affirmed by First Appellate Court— Reversal by— Second Appellate Court— Circumstances/Factors to consider.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n \r\nJONES DOTSE JSC: \r\nThis an appeal by the Defendant/Appellant/Appellant in both consolidated suits, hereafter referred to as the defendant against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, dated 3''d April, 2008 in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents/ Respondents in both cases, hereafter referred to as the plaintiffs.\r\nThe plaintiff in Suit No. 81/92 is the daughter of Odikro Kwabena Agyakwa now deceased, who was the leader of a group of farmers who purchased land from the Akim Abuakwa and Begoro stools. The portion of land in respect of which (his daughter) the plaintiff herein instituted the action is the portion of land that was apportioned to her late father. Portions of the land which Odikro Kwabena Agyakwa purchased with members of the syndicate and which was apportioned to him formed part of the land that he later sold to a group of Krobo farmers led by one Kwesi Ghartey a.k.a Kwesi Photo or Photo Kwesi. The defendant herein is the customary successor of the said Kwesi Ghartey.\r\nThe plaintiff''s in suit No.L20/92 are the children of members of the syndicate of Krobo farmers who purchased portions of the land from Kwabena Agyakwa and in turn apportioned the said land to members of the group including Kwesi Ghartey, who facilitated same.\r\nThe allotment to Kwesi Ghartey seems therefore to be a just recompense for his services in ensuring the purchase of the land by the Krobo farmers, whose parents are the predecessors of the plaintiffs herein.\r\nGENESIS OF THE ACTIONS SUIT NO L 81/92\r\nThe plaintiff, a surviving daughter of Kwabena Agyakwa, claimed that her late father and a group of other farmers in or about 1924, after the purchase of the land from the Akim Abuakwa and Begoro stools, had his own portion of land allotted to him as did other members of the group.\r\n \r\nAfter the purchase and allotment, Kwabena Agyakwa was reported to have sold portions of his land to a group of Krobo farmers led by Kwesi Ghartey.\r\nThe portions of Kwabena Agyakwa''s land which remained after the land transactions between him and the Krobo farmers were customarily gifted by him to his children. The plaintiff therefore described the said parcels of land as schedules A & B.\r\nOn the other hand, the defendant claimed that his uncle the late Kwesi Ghartey purchased a large parcel of land comprising an acreage of about 1,052.52 of land from the plaintiffs'' father, Odikro Kwabena Agyakwa. The defendant therefore claimed the entire portion of land as belonging to this late Uncle, Kwesi Ghartey. Having therefore succeeded him, the defendant entered the land and brought onto it a lot of farmers, reputed to have come from the northern part of the country. These people caused a lot of discomfort, pillage and plunder on the land that the plaintiff and his brother, who had since predeceased her, initiated the action herein in the High Court wherein they claimed the following reliefs against the defendant:\r\ni.	Declaration of title to the parcels of land described in the schedules described as A & B\r\nii.	Damages for trespass\r\niii.	Order for recovery of possession\r\niv.	Order for account\r\nv.	Order for perpetual injunction\r\nSUIT NO 20/92\r\nIn this case, the plaintiff who sued as descendants and successors of the syndicate of Krobo farmers who purchased land from Kwabena Agyakwa, sued the defendant for virtually claiming the entire land purchased by the syndicate as belonging to his Uncle Kwesi Ghartey.\r\n \r\nIn pursuit of the claim that the land belonged to his late uncle, the defendant was reputed to have brought onto the land many well built men from the northern parts of the country. As a result, the defendant caused many acts of trespass, pillage, plunder and wanton destruction of the plaintiff''s farms and buildings. The plaintiff therefore claimed the following as reliefs in the suit before the High Court, Koforidua.\r\nDeclaration of title to the parcel of land described therein\r\nii.	General and special damages for trespass\r\niii.	Perpetual injunction against the defendant\r\niv.	An order of account in respect of proceeds from tenant farmers on portions of the land which the defendant has been collecting.\r\nOn the contrary, the defendant denied the claims of the plaintiffs and asserted that it was his late uncle who bought the large parcel of land encompassing about 1,052.50 acres from Kwabena Agyakwa in his personal capacity and not as a leader of any group of Krobo farmers.\r\nThe defendant also claimed that it was after the purchase of the land by his uncle that a group of Krobo farmers, led by the parents of the plaintiffs approached him to re-purchase portion of the land from him.\r\nThe defendant therefore denied the claims of the plaintiffs and asserted that his uncle performed overt acts of ownership in respect of the land and this was acknowledged by all and sundry.\r\nJUDGMENT BY HIGH COURT\r\nBoth the above two cases were consolidated, and after an exhaustive trial in which a court appointed Surveyor prepared a plan which he tendered, the High Court, Koforidua on 21 January 2003 delivered judgment in favour of the plaintiffs in both cases.\r\nAfter making very important findings of fact in favour of the plaintiff in suit No. 81/92, the learned trial Judge held thus:\r\n \r\nnoticed that this suit was initially commenced by two of Agyarkwa''s children for and on behalf of the other children of Agyarkwa. Mrs. Agyarkwa testified that the land was gifted to them by their father. She was not cross-examined or challenged on this....\r\nI accept the evidence of the plaintiff and their witnesses in this suit and reject that of the defendant. I find that the plaintiffs have proved their claims by a preponderance of the evidence led in court and hold that they are entitled to judgment on their respective claims."\r\nAccordingly, the learned trial Judge declared the plaintiff and her other siblings as being entitled to the schedules of land claimed as per\r\nthe writ of summons\r\nii.	The plaintiff was also declared as being entitled to recover possession of the land declared as being their property.\r\niii.	The defendant was perpetually restrained from having anything to do whatsoever with the land.\r\niv.	In view of the order of special damages that was granted the plaintiff, the learned trial Judge declined to grant the order for accounts.\r\nv.	All monies deposited with the Registrar of the Court as receiver and manager were ordered to be paid to the plaintiff.\r\nSUIT NO 20/92\r\nThe learned trial Judge entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff in suit No. 20/92 and held thus:\r\nI declare the plaintiffs'' and their Krobo syndicates'' title to all that parcel of land bounded on the North by W. D. Ghartey''s land now in possession of the defendant, and on all other sides by the properties of Agyarkwa and company (now Mrs. Aboa and company) as\r\ndemarcated in exhibit 2\r\n \r\nii.	4:5 million general damages for trespass against defendant\r\niii.	Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, assigns etc. APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL\r\nAs was to be expected of a fighter, the defendant appealed on many grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal. But like the trial court, the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision on the 3rd day of April 2008 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant.\r\nConcluding the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Aryeetey JA (as he then was) stated thus:\r\n"For the reasons given in this judgment I am of the view that\r\nthe conclusions of the learned judge in the court below should\r\nnot be disturbed. The appeal in respect of the two consolidated\r\ncases falls and it is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the\r\ncourt below in the consolidated cases, suit No. L 20192 and suit\r\nNo. L 81192 is affirmed"\r\nThis is the judgment that is on appeal to the Supreme Court. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT SUIT NO.81/92\r\n1.	The learned Judges of the Court of Appeal erred when they held affirming the holding of the Court of Appeal (sic) that the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent had capacity to institute the action against the Defendant/Appellant/Appellant.\r\n2.	The learned Judges of the Court of Appeal erred in entering judgment for the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent as she failed to prove title to the land in dispute.\r\n \r\n3.	The learned judges of the Court of Appeal erred when they held affirming the holding of the learned trial judge that the boundaries of the land owned by the Ghartey (the predecessor of the Defendant/Appellant/Appellant) are as shown in exhibit Z (marked 1) and exhibit E\r\n4.	The learned Judges of the Court of Appeal erred when they made an order for recovery of possession of the disputed land in favour of the Plaintiff/ Respondent/Respondent.\r\n5.	Additional grounds will be filed on the receipt of the record of proceedings.\r\nSUIT NO. L20 /92\r\n1.	The learned Judges of the Court of Appeal erred when they held affirming the holding of the learned trial judge, that on the evidence the Krobo farmers purchased the land jointly with W.D. Ghartey.\r\n2.	The learned Judges of the Court of Appeal erred when they held, affirming the decision of the learned trial Judge, that the boundaries of the land owned by Ghartey (the appellants predecessors) are as shown in exhibit Z (marked 1) and exhibit E.\r\n3.	The learned judges of the Court of Appeal erred in entering judgment for the Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents as they failed to prove the land in dispute.\r\n4.	The learned judges of the Court of Appeal erred when they held affirming the holding of the learned trial judge, that the Defendant/Appellant/Appellant had trespassed on Plaintiff/Respondent /respondent''s land when, on the evidence on record, the Respondent had clearly failed to prove that title on the disputed lands was vested in\r\n \r\nthem or that they had right to possession superior to that of the appellant.\r\n5. Additional grounds will be filed on the receipt of record of proceedings.\r\nSUBMISSIONS BEFORE SUPREME COURT\r\nIt should be noted that no additional grounds have been filed and the above were the grounds in respect of which learned Counsel filed their respective statements of case.\r\nBY THE DEFENDANT\r\nThe main thrust of the submission of learned counsel for the defendant, Mr. Albert Adaare, is that the Court of Appeal in totality did not appreciate the arguments made in support of the defendants appeal. In that regard, learned counsel for the defendant stated in unequivocal language that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal did not understand the nature of the case of the defendant. From the statement of case of the defendant, the following issues stand out as the core arguments proffered by the defendant against the Court of Appeal judgment.\r\n1. The Court of Appeal in evaluating the evidence adduced before the trial High Court failed to apply the well established principle of proof in actions for declaration of title to land as has been laid down in sections 11 (4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD 323, and also in decided cases like:\r\na. Nartey v Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Plant Ltd. [1987-88] 2 GLR 314 S.0 and\r\n \r\nb. Odametey v Clocuh [1989-90] 1 GLR 14 at 28\r\n \r\nLearned Counsel for the defendant submitted very forcefully that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal in evaluating the evidence of the defendant\r\napplied an old principle of law in the case of Kodilinye V Odu [1935] 2\r\nWACA 336 at 337-338 which is to the effect that a plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land had to succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant''s case.\r\n2.	Learned Counsel for the defendant also submitted that the Court of Appeal confused the land transactions of the predecessor of the defendant, W. D. Ghartey with the predecessor of the plaintiff Opanyin Kwabena Agyakwa in suit No. 81/90. In this respect, leaned Counsel for the defendant submitted that instead of appreciating the fact that W. D. Ghartey had two distinct transactions with Opanyin Kwabena Agyarkwa, to wit 80 and 120 ropes of land respectively, the Court of Appeal failed to take these transactions into account.\r\nIn this respect, learned counsel for the defendant anchored his submissions on exhibits 16 and 16 B to support his arguments. By this confusion, which learned counsel attributed to the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal, which according to counsel led the Judges to conclude that the land described in schedule A in suit No. L 81/92 had been gifted to the plaintiff therein by her father and not purchased by the defendant''s predecessor is not borne out by the record of appeal.\r\n3.	Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that on the principle of "Nemo dat quod non habet"the father of the plaintiff in suit No. L 81/92, Opanyin Kwabena Agyarkwa having divested himself of all title in the land had no interest left in the land to have gifted to his children as the trial court found and which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal.\r\nFinally, learned counsel for the defendant anchored his submission in respect of the trial court''s rejection of exhibit I and its confirmation of same by the Court of Appeal as erroneous and totally unsupportable.\r\n \r\nLearned Counsel submitted that the basis upon which the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision to reject exhibit I and rather use exhibits Z and E are based on speculation.\r\nBased on the above submissions, learned counsel for the defendant prayed this court to allow the present appeal and give judgment in favour of the defendant.\r\nBY THE PLAINTIFF''S\r\nFrom the arguments of learned Counsel for the plaintiffs in suit No. L 20/92 and L81/92, the following points of substance have been made.\r\n1.	Learned Counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand argued that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal assessed the evidence of the parties using the accepted principles on the standard of proof on the basis of the principle of preponderance of probabilities as is provided in sections 11 (4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323 and the decision of Acquah JSC (as he then was) in the case of Adwubeng v Domfeh (1996-19971 SCGLR 660 at 670 and the unreported case of Adzraku v Dzatagbo, High Court, Ho dated 11th February, 1993. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff therefore submitted that the Court of Appeal properly applied the correct principles of evidence in evaluating the case for the plaintiffs and defendants.\r\n2.	Leaned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that there is no evidence on record to support the contention of the defendant that his predecessor had two separate land transactions with Opanyin Kwabena Agyarkwa. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff''s in both suits therefore submitted that it was only one land transaction that was entered into by Kwesi Ghartey\r\nand Kwabena Agyarkwa and this is as follows:\r\nThere was only one land transaction by Kwabena Agyakwa to the Krobo Syndicate led by W. D. Ghartey and that the remaining portion of land of Kwabena Agyakwa was the one gifted to the children.\r\n \r\n3.	Learned Counsel argued that, since Kwabena Agyakwa did not completely divest himself of all the parcels of land he bought from the Begoro stool as far back as 1924 or thereabout, he retained title in the remaining portion of land that he purchased. That meant that Kwabena Agyakwa still had an interest in the remaining portions of land which he could divest to his children as he did. The principle of "Nemo dat quod non habet"is thus inapplicable in the circumstances of this case.\r\nFinally, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that there were really very cogent reasons why exhibit I had to be rejected. This is because, having divested title in the land as far back as 1924, or thereabout to Kwabena Agyakwa & Co. the Begoro Stool had no interest left in the land to divest in 1967 to W.D. Ghartey. Therefore, it was palpably wrong for the defendant''s predecessor, Kwesi Ghartey, to have given exhibit I to the successor of the Begoro Chief to authenticate the sale of land whereas that same land had in 1924 been conveyed to Kwabena Agyakwa and his company.\r\nCounsel for plaintiff submitted that, on a proper application of the principle of "Nemo dat quod non habet"it will mean that the Begoro Stool had no interest left in the land to divest. Therefore exhibit I which purports to convey title in land that had already been conveyed and transferred to Kwabena Agyakwa & Co. by the Begoro Stool meant the Begoro stool had no interest left to convey. Counsel therefore submitted that exhibit I was properly rejected.\r\nBefore we proceed to deal with the issues that need to be dealt with in order to finally dispose of this appeal, we feel bound to comment on two issues namely:\r\n1.	Use of inappropriate and intemperate language by counsel in their statements of case.\r\n2.	The legal effect of the exhibits tendered in this case and their application and effect on the outcome of this appeal.\r\nUSE OF INAPPROPRIATE AND INTEMPERATE LANGUAGE BY COUNSEL\r\n \r\nWe have times without number complained about the use of inappropriate, intemperate, offensive and insulting language by counsel in their submissions before the courts.\r\nOurs is a learned profession and this demands a very high standard of behavior not only in the etiquette at the Bar, but also in the use of language. Use of language in this case finds expression in the choice of words by defendant''s counsel to express opinions on the judgments of the lower courts in this appeal.\r\nSecondly, it also finds expression in the use of words to express opinion on the work of counsel on the other side. What must be noted is that, since the statement of case is for the consumption of this court, use of inappropriate, insulting, offensive and intemperate language is an indictment and sign of gross disrespect to the court.\r\nIn the instant appeal a few examples from either side will suffice. For example, learned counsel for the defendant, Albert Adaare, on page 9 of his statement of case stated thus:-\r\n"Their Lordships in the Cowl of Appeal confused the second purchase transaction and the dealings with the 80 ropes of land initially bought by Ghartey from Agyakwa"\r\nAgain on page 10 of the same statement, learned counsel for the defendant stated thus:-\r\n"In respect of suit No. L81/92, the errors of their Lordships in the Court of Appeal are even more grievous"\r\nThe use of very strong, inappropriate and sometimes insulting language on the part of learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr. Asante-Ansong & Co. was more prevalent and pronounced.\r\nFor example, on page 4 of the statement of case for the plaintiffs, para 13, it is stated thus:\r\n"I submit that my learned friend unfortunately doctored the evidence on record to give him a leeway to attack the Judges of Appeal Court"\r\n \r\nThen on page 5, paragraph 18, learned Counsel again wrote thus:-\r\n"I submit that my learned friend for the appellant disingenuously massaged the evidence when he wrote\r\n''What the plaintiff in suit No. 81192 is claiming as part of what she alleges Agyakwa gifted to his children, when intact she, Mrs. A boa, the plaintiff in L 81192 witnessed the payment of the balance of the purchase price for this land to Opanin Berkoe her father''s successor by Chartey.''\r\nOn page 10 of the statement of case, learned counsel for the plaintiff states again as follows:-\r\n"My learned friend is either too ill at ease in telling the truth or he totally misapprehended the evidence even that of his own dient, the appellant"\r\nFinally, this is what learned counsel for the plaintiffs stated in concluding the use of strong and intemperate language thus:-\r\n"Moreover if my learned friend had read the record properly he would have found that what Keelson said in cross examination on exhibit 17 was..."\r\nOne need not be an Angel to conclude that the words referred to supra used by both learned counsel are strong, inappropriate and intemperate language.\r\nThe Supreme Court, speaking with one voice through me in the recent unreported case of Assemblies of God Church, Ghana v Rev. Ransford Obeng & 4 others suit No. 34/7/2009, dated 3rd February 2010 stated on abusive and insulting language by counsel as follows:-\r\n"We will henceforth urge all learned counsel involved in preparation of statement of case for their clients espedally at the Supreme court level to be mindful of the following: -\r\nAvoid abusive and insulting language not suitable for use in a court of law such as this Supreme Court. It is to be noted that learned counsel can still make their points and arguments very strongly without the use\r\n \r\nof language that is sometimes associated with persons in some other vocations. Not so however in a court of law."\r\nEven though this is not a judgment, they are proceedings which have been processed and put before the highest Court of the land, the Supreme Court. We therefore find the caution and admonition by the Supreme Court in the\r\ncase of Effia Stool v Fijai Stool [2001-2002J SCGLR 893 where the court\r\ndeprecated the use of offensive language in the writing of judgments and rulings by Judges and Adjudicators as appropriate and applicable to counsel as well. Bamford Addo JSC (as she then was), speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court in the above case stated as follows:-\r\nIt should be remembered by Judges and adjudicators that language Is their working tool from which is deduced their intention and reason for their findings, judgments and rulings. For this reason, it is important to use words advisedly and to resort to judicial language whenever possible. Further, their choice of words must be dearly appropriate and non-controversial so as to avoid charges of neglect of duty to evaluate evidence properly, as has happened in this case, as well as charges of unfairness and bias which may be wrong and non-existent The use of prudent, temperate and judicious language by Judges will no doubt prevent complaints of the nature raised in the grounds of appeal".\r\nIn a recent address to Judges and Magistrates of Ghana, on 1st October 2009, Her Ladyship the Chief Justice also had occasion to admonish Judges and Magistrates on the need to use decent language in their judgments. She stated thus:-\r\n"But perhaps the worst damage we inflict on ourselves is when we use unsavory language in our judgments to attack fellow judges when we find ourselves in disagreement with them. I have had occasion to speak about this unprofessional behaviour, conduct which in my view, smacks of total lack of humility, but it does appear some of us are unrepentant It is difficult to fathom why a judge would choose to treat his or her colleague in that manner, seeing that none of us can daim infallibility,\r\n \r\nand for all we know the one castigating the other may rather be in error."\r\nThe combined effect of all these is that, Lawyers, just like Judges and Magistrates should endeavour at all times (especially in all their pleadings and processes filed before the courts and in their viva voce submissions in court) to use words advisedly and use words that are very decent and appropriate as the circumstances demand. A lawyer can still make his point very forcefully with the best of meanings without the use of offensive, intemperate, clumsy and insulting language.\r\nIn our opinion, a lawyer who measures up to the above standards is one that lives up to the expectation as a learned friend.\r\nA word of caution, advice and admonition should equally go to all lawyers who take the privilege of venting their frustration in the loss of cases in the lower courts on the Judges and Magistrates of those courts with the use of harsh, offensive, intemperate and inappropriate language in the formulation of their grounds of appeal and statement of cases to desist from such conduct. This court clearly frowns upon and deprecates such conduct as not only inappropriate and unprofessional but also unlearned and ungentlemanly. It is expected that lawyers will henceforth take note and desist from the above conduct as has been illustrated in this appeal.\r\nEVALUATION OF EXHIBITS 1.	Exhibit A\r\nThis is an exhibit that was tendered by the plaintiff Mrs. Christiana Edith Aboa in suit No. 81/92 on 23 rd February, 2001. It is an extract from the National Archives of Ghana and it is Gold Coast Order No. 17 of 1936. Page 216 Area R of this exhibit reads as follows:-\r\nName of Right Holder: Kwabena Agyakwa\r\nAddress:	Mampong\r\n \r\nRight: Ownership of land, Area R on plan, 1710 acres (exclusive of mining and timber rights) on Akim Abuakwa land.\r\nExtent:	Area R, — 1710 acres\r\nFrom the above exhibit, it is clear that the father of the plaintiff bought the land from the Akim Abuakwa stool in 1924 or thereabout.\r\n2.	Exhibit B\r\nThis exhibit is significant in many respects. In the first place, the plaintiff testified that after the purchase of the land by her father Kwabena Agyakwa in 1924, the land in the area was declared a forest reserve in 1928, that is the\r\nWorobong Forest Reserve (Akim Abuakwa Portion). After the hearings of various claims made by the interested claimants, the Reserve Settlement Commissioner, His Worship Christopher Herbert Cooke, on the 11thof March, 1953 made the following orders on page 58 of the exhibit in respect of land belonging to the plaintiff''s father:-\r\n"At Mr. Beeton''s enquiry, there were some fifteen sets of claimants whose claims to have purchased land from Akim Abuakwa were allowed. Two of these namely, Tetteh Kwaku Kwao and Tetteh Kwaku Adjo wee mentioned above, were successful in their appeal to the West African Court of Appeal, by whose orders their lands were excluded from the area of the proposed Reserve. As a result of the subsequent\r\nrevision of the boundaries of the Reserve, the lands of seven more sets of claimants have now been totally excluded from the proposed Reserve, namely:-\r\n1.	Tei Kassaw and Asare Kwao\r\n2.	Nelson Darko\r\n3.	Kwasi Bodua Yohuno, Successor of Okyeame Kwaku Yohuno\r\n4.	Narh Adjebeng\r\n \r\n5.	Kwabena Agyakwa\r\n6.	Kwaku Larbi\r\n7 Tetteh Kwaku Carpenter"\r\nIt is therefore significant to note that, as at 1952, when the enquiries into the Worobong Forest Reserve commenced, Kwabena Agyakwa, the father and predecessor of the plaintiff in suit L81/92 was firmly ensconced upon the land. The enquiry report and judgment validated his rights of ownership and excluded same from the Forest Reserve. This in our view is a significant recognition of an overt act of ownership in respect of which sight should not be lost.\r\nThis is especially so if one considers the commencement year of the enquiry 1952 and the date of the report and judgment, 11th March, 1953. Kwesi Ghartey, the predecessor of the defendant was conspicuously absent in all the above proceedings, even though he was alleged to have been present on the land.\r\n3.	Exhibit C\r\nThis exhibit relates to the judgment in the transferred suit No. L 3/1956 dated 21st day of May, 1962 before 011ennu 3, (as he then was) in a case intitutled\r\n1.	Nana Amoako Atta IV - substituted for Nana Ofori Atta II - Okyenhene, Kibi, Akim Abuakwa\r\n2.	Benkumhene Nana Antwi Awuah III substituted for Benkumhene Nana Antwi Awuah II of Begoro, Akim Abuakwa	- Plaintiffs Bafour Kwabena Agyakwa Odikro of Onuku, near Begoro for and on behalf of himself and 24 others commonly known as the Agyakwa Company of Mampong Akwapim	-Co-Plaintiffs Vrs\r\n1.	Nana Osei Kofi II Ohene of Kwahu Tafo\r\n2.	Nana Kwabena Adakwa Ohene of Bepong\r\n \r\n3.	Odikro Dankwa of Worobong, in the Kwahu Stool - Defendants\r\n4.	Nana Akuamoa Ampong II substituted for Nana\r\nBoateng Akuamoa VII	- Co-Defendant\r\nThe plaintiff in explaining the reason for the tendering of this document stated that, after the enquiry report in exhibit B, her father shared the land to members of his group with whom he had purchased the land. After the sharing of the land, the plaintiff testified that, her father sold a portion of the land to a group of Krobo farmers at a cost of £2,000. The names of the Krobo farmers were given as follows: \r\ni.	Daniel Otieku\r\nOdonkor Appiah\r\niii.	Paddy Agbor\r\niv.	Dikye Kofi Wayo\r\nv.	Awo Tei Amoah and\r\nvi.	Osei Kakri\r\nAccording to the plaintiff these Krobo farmers were led by one Kwesi Photo aka Kwesi Ghartey, the defendant''s predecessor, who acted as interpreter between her Twi speaking father and the Krobo farmers. She gave the expanse of land sold by her father to the Krobo farmers as 80 ropes at the base and 40 ropes at the side.\r\nAccording to the plaintiff, her late father performed various overt acts of ownership on the land to wit, building of houses and establishment of a village, planted cocoa, plantain and a host of food crops.\r\nHowever, when portions of the land were released after the Worobong Forest Reserve Enquiry, because it was on the border of the Kwahu State, a host of\r\nKwahu farmers invaded the land and committed acts of trepass.\r\nAs a result, the suit in respect of which judgment in exhibit C was given was commenced in the High Court, Accra by the stools of Akim Abuakwa and Begoro respectively against the Kwahu Stool. However, as plaintiff''s father and the other farmers had by then firmly settled on the land, they had to join the suit as co-plaintiff.\r\n \r\nIt is significant to note that judgment in exhibit C was in favour of the plaintiff therein and the co-plaintiff who was the plaintiff''s father, Kwabena Agyakwa in respect of:-\r\nDeclaration that the boundary fixed as per a survey map is the boundary between the stool lands of Akim Abuakwa and the stool lands of Kwahu\r\nii.	Recovery of possession and ejectment of the defendants and co-defendants therein from the land\r\niii.	£2,000 special damages for trespass\r\niv.	Injunction restraining the defendants and co-defendants\r\nV.	Accounts of mesne profits and cost\r\nAnother significant thing about exhibit C is that, even though the defendant''s predecessor Kwesi Ghartey was visibly around, he was neither a party to the suit nor called as a witness by any of the contesting stools therein. This therefore means that Kwesi Ghartey did not appear in any of the enquiries in exhibit B and the proceedings in exhibit C. This then creates a very big doubt as to whether the claims by the defendant as to the extent of land holding the said Kwesi Ghartey was reputed to have owned before his death in 1975 or thereabout is sustainable.\r\nS.	Exhibit \r\nThis exhibit is a plan of the land that was prepared by a licensed Surveyor, Anin-Ayeko at the instance of the then Eastern Regional Commander, Colonel Takyi. The title of the plan reads thus:-\r\n"Showing the property of Opanyin Kwabena Agyakwa & Company situate at Akwamu Kotoku, Begoro Area 2040.60 acres."\r\nThe Boundaries of land as indicated and shown on the plan are as follows:- On one side by Kwaku Larbi & Co.\r\n \r\nOn another side by Begoro Stool.\r\nOn another side by Adjabeng & Co, Kwaku Yohuno and Tettey Kwaku Adjiwe and\r\nOn the last side by Kwahu stool land\r\nThe date of the plan is 1st August 1976, and was admitted into evidence without objection on 20th July 2001. According to P.W.3 who tendered exhibit E, the defendant''s predecessor Kwesi Ghartey took P.W.3 round his land and\r\nindicated to him the boundaries of the land.\r\nOn exhibit E, it is clear that the said Kwesi Ghartey''s land is No. 7 and the features therein are:\r\n1.	Ghartey''s Village\r\n2.	Concrete pillar marked W. D. Ghartey\r\n3.	Broken concrete pillar and\r\n4.	Deduakro village\r\nIt should also be noted that, apart from Kwabena Agyakwa whose land was also delineated on the said plan as No I, all the Krobo farmers whose children or descendants have taken action against the defendant in suit No. L 20/92 all have their parcels of land clearly delineated on the land in exhibit E.\r\nIt should also be noted that in all, about 127 farmers were indentified at the time of the preparation of the plan in early 1975 as being present on the land.\r\nIt should also be noted that PW3 knew Kwesi Ghartey long ago in the 1950''s and in fact was reputed to have prepared exhibit I, which is a plan of Kwesi Ghartey''s land which was accordingly tendered through him.\r\nThat being the case, it is clear that PW3 with his prior knowledge of Kwesi Ghartey and the land, should be considered as having performed his job as a professional.\r\n \r\nIn view of the relationship of exhibit 1 with exhibit E, we will tie it up with a discussion so that the two will follow a sequence.\r\nExhibit I - Tendered by the defendant through PW3\r\n1.	The first significant thing of substance about exhibit (one) I is the heading. It is headed thus:\r\n"P/an of Land The Property of Mr. W. D. Ghartey of W/nnet''a & Co, situates at Akwan Kotoku on Ak/rn Segro (sic) Stool land, Ak/rn Abuakwa D/str/ct Shewn edged Pink Area 1052.50 acres or 1.645 sq miles "\r\nWhat is significant is the description of "W. D. Ghartey & Co" who and who are the company that has been used to denote the names of the persons who own the land covered by the plan?\r\nIs this an admission of the fact that indeed the group of Krobo farmers, actually requested W. D. Ghartey to lead them in their land purchase transactions with Kwabena Agyakwa?\r\nIt should also be noted that the plaintiffs in suit No. 20/92 are the descendants or children of the original Krobo farmers who purchased land from Kwabena Agyakwa.\r\n2.	The second substantial point of significance about exhibit (one) I is the fact that it is signed by Nana Begorohene, Antwi Awuah III dated 6th February 1967.\r\nThis is a serious misnomer. The undisputed fact is that, Kwabena Agyakwa & Co. obtained their grant of land from the Begoro and Akim Abuakwa stools in or about 1924.\r\nAt the time, the Chief of Begoro was Nana Antwi Awua II and the Okyenhene was Nana Ofori Atta II.\r\nThe above were the principal characters at the time that Kwabena Agyakwa & Co. purchased the parcels of land from the respective stools.\r\n \r\nFor example, if one refers to exhibit B, the Worobong Forest Reserve Enquiry report, it is clear that Nana Antwi Awua II the chief of Begoro was the person who appeared before the Enquiry proceedings and confirmed the status of Kwabena Agyakwa and the other purchasers of land from them.\r\nAgain, if one refers to Exhibit C, it is clear that it was Nana Ofori Atta II and Nana Antwi Awuah II who together with Kwabena Agyakwa commenced the action in the High Court against the trespassers from the Kwahu Stool.\r\nIt was only after the death of the two chiefs that they were substituted by Nana Amoako Atta IV for Nana Ofori Atta II and Nana Antwi Awuah III for Nana Antwi Awuah II.\r\nA very significant point is that, the portions of land in dispute, and indeed covered in this exhibit (one) 1 had long been divested by the Akim Abuakwa and Begoro stools.\r\nThere was therefore no interest and title left in those particular parcels of land for the chief of Begoro, Nana Antwi Awua III to be conveying to W. D. Ghartey & Co. on the plan as at 6th February, 1967.\r\nWhat should be noted is that the land had already been conveyed to Kwabena Agyakwa & Co., and the two stools had confirmed the said conveyance by their support of Kwabena Agyakwa''s title to the parcels of land in both exhibits\r\nB and C.\r\nIt therefore follows that Nana Antwi Awuah III did not have any title in the purported conveyance he seemed to be conveying to W. D. Ghartey & Co. The principle of nemo dat quod non habet will therefore apply in this case to further discredit and support the reason why the court rejected exhibit I.\r\nIndeed, as was held by the Court of Appeal in Wordie v Awudu Bukari [1976] 2 GLR 271 CA at 380, applying the principle of nemo dat quod non habet in similar circumstances:-\r\n"It follows that, although the conveyance the first appellant took from the Osu stool is valid so far as the necessary legal formalities are concerned, yet it conveyed nothing because the Osu Stool had no land in\r\n \r\nthe area in dispute on the maxim nemo oat quod non habet The first appellant cannot therefore legally rely on exhibit C the conveyance from the Osu stool which was a party to the consolidated suit before Jackson."\r\nIn the instant case, since the Begoro and Akim Abuakwa Stools had already divested themselves of title in the very parcel of land to Kwabena Agyakwa, any attempt by W. D. Ghartey, the defendant''s predecessor to obtain a conveyance and secure validity for his document exhibit (one) 1 cannot hold since there was no interest or title left for them to convey.\r\nIt can thus be safely concluded that, the principle nemo oat quod non habet applies whenever an owner of land who had previously divested himself of title in the land previously owned by him to another person, attempts by a subsequent transaction to convey title to the new person in respect of the same land cannot be valid. This is because an owner of land can only convey what he owns, and having already divested himself of title, the new occupant of the Begoro stool Nana Antwi Awuah III cannot revoke what his predecessor had done. Exhibit I is therefore a worthless document.\r\nWith the above, we are of the considered opinion that exhibit I has no evidential value capable of any consideration. The trial court and the Court of Appeal were therefore right by not relying on it\r\nExhibits F and 18	I\r\nBoth exhibits F and 18 relate to series of minutes taken at meetings convened at the instance of the Eastern Regional Commissioners or Ministers to solve the worsening security problems arising from the land disputes touching and concerning the lands in dispute.\r\nThese exhibits are significant in the sense that they give a historical background to the plan prepared at the instance of the Regional Minister Colonel Takyi and tendered in evidence as exhibit E.\r\nExhibit 18 on the other hand is significant in the sense that it confirms the following positions:-\r\n \r\n1.	That it was Kwabena Agyarkwa and members of his company who bought land from the Akim Abuakwa and Begoro stools.\r\n2.	Kwabena Agyakwa on his part sold portions of the land to W. D Ghartey and the Krobo farmers.\r\n3.	W. D. Ghartey never bought land from the Akim Abuakwa or Begoro stool directly.\r\n4.	There was the admission of the presence of a large number of Zabrama or people of northern origin on the disputed land.\r\n5.	There were series of acts of trespass, plunder, pillage and lawlessness on portions of land occupied by the plaintiff''s herein by third parties introduced onto the land by the defendant.\r\n6.	These acts of insecurity received the serious attention of the Regional Ministers for the Eastern Region\r\n7.	The persons reputed to be working for the defendant herein alone number close to about 144 as at 1.9th August, 1977.\r\nAs a matter of fact, DW2 Kwabena Osei, in answers to questions under cross- examination stated that defendant had about 74 Grunshie farmers on the land, and not Zabrama people. This in our view supports a material averment of the plaintiffs, in that, the defendant brought people of northern origin who committed acts of trespass on the disputed land. It is like defendant''s witness, supporting plaintiff''s case.\r\nExhibit 2\r\nThis is the Letters of Administration granted the defendant in respect of the Estate of his Uncle William David Ghartey. From this exhibit, it is clear that W. D. Ghartey died on the 1st day of March 1975 and that the defendant then Capt. John Kwesi Keelson had been appointed as the Administrator of the Estate of W. D. Ghartey with effect from 18th November, 1975.\r\n \r\nIt is therefore clear that the said defendant has the requisite capacity so far as all matters concerning the estate of W. D. Ghartey are concerned.\r\nFor a very long time, many litigants and counsel have taken the view that Letters of Administration are procured only to support and validate their capacity. That might very well be the case. However, there is also a declaration of the movable and immoveable properties of the deceased Intestate, which is a key ingredient of a Letters of Administration Certificate.\r\nIn the instant case, it is boldly written on exhibit 2, that the net worth of the entire assets of W. D Ghartey as was sworn to by the defendant which qualified him and enabled him to obtain the Letters of Administration is under\r\n2,103.00 (Two Thousand, One Hundred and three cedis) as at 18'' November, 1975.\r\nIndeed, if as is stated by the defendant that W. D. Ghartey left a total of 1052.50 acres of land including several other assets then the amount of\r\n2,103.00 as the net worth of the deceased W. D. Ghartey is woefully inadequate, and or misleading.\r\nIt should be noted that, courts of law should always evaluate the worth of a deceased''s estate whenever a dispute arises as to the assets of the deceased person when he was alive from the depositions sworn to before the grant of an L/A. If indeed W. D. Ghartey had land to the size of 1052.50 acres, then assuming an acre of land is conservatively put at two cedis (2.00) then the total acreage will be valued at Q104. That will therefore mean that, W. D. Ghartey did not have any other assets, like houses, furniture, household chattels, dresses, shoes, clothes, jewellery, farms, bank accounts etc.\r\nFrom our assessment of the value which the defendant himself put on the worth of his uncle, it is clear that he did not, and could not be the owner of the 1052.50 acres of land that he was reputed to have owned.\r\nPersons preparing legal documents for deceased persons like letters of administration should be circumspect in ensuring that they give an accurate, detailed account of all the particulars required. This is because a legal document like letters of administration must be taken at their face value not\r\n \r\nonly for conferment of capacity but also as the worth of the person whose intestate properties are in dispute. Using the above principle, the defendant has an uphill task in convincing this court that his case must be accepted in place of the plaintiff''s case.\r\nIt should be noted that, irrespective of the discrepancy in the total worth of the assets stated in exhibit 2 there are other cogent pieces of evidence on\r\n \r\nrecord why the defendant''s case.\r\n \r\nplaintiff''s cases are to be accepted, in preference to the\r\n \r\nExhibit Z\r\nThis is the survey plan that was ordered by the court and was eventually tendered by C.W.1, Yaw Aboagye Kyei who at all material times worked in the Regional office of the Survey Department in Koforidua. There is no doubt that the said C. W. I, is really competent and has all the requisite qualifications as a Surveyor. He accordingly tendered a survey plan of the land, marked as exhibit Z on 19th September, 2000 before the learned trial Judge Acquaye J, (as he then was).\r\nThe judgment of the learned trial Judge, which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in relation to exhibit Z, must be understood in proper context. What it meant is that the defendant, in indicating the features and the land size of his land, used the same method he applied when he procured the plan prepared and tendered as exhibit I (one). As has already been graphically discussed and analyzed, exhibit I has been torn into pieces and has no legitimacy to stand on its own.\r\nIf therefore, the defendant in giving instructions to C.W.I towards the preparation of exhibit Z used the same criteria, then it follows that for the same reasons exhibit Z must be rejected for lack of credibility in so far as it relates to defendant''s portion of the land. What must be noted is that, Survey plans generally are prepared using features that are credible and prominent and based on overwhelming overt acts of ownership. These include but are not\r\n \r\nlimited to corner pillars, natural or original boundary features like Ntome trees where these are applicable, anthills, streams, rivers, ruined villages, sites of some trees specifically planted to indicate human habitation like coconut, mango, palm trees, mahogany, citrus, etc, fetish grove or shrines, farms or farmsteads, and credible boundary neighbours to correspond with the description of the land given in the case\r\nIn the instant appeal, the defendant called D.W.I Kwame Ghartey a stepson of Kwesi Chartey who lived and worked with him on the land in dispute. From the testimony of this witness, it is clear that the land upon which defendants predecessor owned, lived and worked upon is no more than 100 ropes.\r\nThis piece of evidence is clearly inconsistent with the land size that the defendant has claimed. The matter has been made worse for the defendant, because he claimed it was DWI and another nephew of his uncle, called Kow Pereba Ansah who showed him portions of his uncle''s land. This is exactly what he said in his evidence in chief\r\n"After my uncle ''s death in 1975, I first went on the land in April 1975 I went there to inspect the general area of my uncle''s Immoveable properties in the Miaso area. It was my uncle ''s son and his nephew call Kow Pereba Ansah who was staying with him. The son was called Kwame G''hartey but is now staying at Abosso in the Fanteakwa District Ansah is at Winneba now. After I had been shown the boundaries of the land I went back to Accra and later started working on the land by employing labourers to assist me."\r\nIt is therefore clear that the defendant cannot claim land more than the persons who showed him the land claimed Kwesi Ghartey purchased.\r\nThere is sufficient justification for both the trial court and the Court of Appeal rejecting the land as was claimed by the defendant in both exhibits Z and I respectively.\r\nWe are therefore of the considered view that, in construing the probative value of a survey plan, apart from the features which the court might take into consideration, pieces of material evidence, like testimonies of witnesses about\r\n \r\ntheir knowledge of the extent of land and its possible effect on the instructions given to the Surveyor are indicators which should not be taken lightly. In the instant case, such evidence coming as it were from the defendant and confirmed by DWI have been very effective in reducing the credibility of the defendant''s assertion that his uncle purchased 1052.50 acres of land from Kwabena Agyakwa.\r\nExhibits 3-17\r\nThese exhibits undeniably are purchase receipts, tendered by the defendant as proof of purchase of land by his uncle Kwesi Ghartey from Kwabena Agyakwa on the one part. On the second part, are also receipts indicating that kwesi Ghartey sold land to some Krobo farmers.\r\nWhat we have observed in the writings on most of these receipts is that they all appear to be in the same handwriting. Indeed if the writings on exhibit 17 are also taken into consideration against the background that it is reputed to be a note book kept and belonging to Kwesi Ghartey, then there is no doubt that he is the author of the writings in exhibits 3 — 16B.\r\nThe second observation we wish to make is that, the said receipts do not specifically identify the transactions to any parcel of land. It is a desirable practice for receipts involving transactions touching land to specifically refer to the land and perhaps a description of same. The absence of particulars of the description of the land transaction on the receipts does not negate or nullify the said transactions. It only casts doubts when in this case, the defendant is claiming that Kwesi Ghartey by those receipts purchased 1052.50 acres of land from Kwabena Agyakwa. The absence of the extent of land so purchased in the circumstances becomes very crucial.\r\nThirdly, in a significant number of cases and for example, exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7,8,9,11,13 we observe that the transactions were witnessed by some persons. Prominent among these persons are, Osei kakri, Odonkor Appiah, Yaw Tutu and Tetteh Sosime. Osei Kakri and Odonkor Appiah no doubt are the original Krobo farmers reputed to have purchased the land in a syndicate from Kwabena Agyakwa.\r\n \r\nIn view of all the above observations, the findings of the learned trial judge which were confirmed and explained by the Court of Appeal in their judgment when they stated per Aryeetey JA (as he then was) is very revealing as follows:-\r\n"At page 2 of exhibit 17 on the left side the five payments for the total price of the 80 ropes of land which Ghartey purchased from Okyeame Agyakwa are recorded and the five recorded payments reflect five of the receipts which the defendant tendered in evidence. These are exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6 and S which are at pages 422, 423, and 424 respectively of the record of appeal\r\nThe five receipts relate to the completed payment of the sale transaction recorded at page 2 of exhibit 17 Therefore they could not be related to sale transaction, payment for which continued after the death of Okyeame Ghartey.\r\nNone of the five receipts I have referred to was witnessed by the plaintiff''s predecessors or any one else. That is in sharp contrast with the remaining receipts which were witnessed by others including some of the predecessors of the plaintiffs. That of course lends support to the plaintiff''s stand that when payments were made to Agyakwa on behalf of the plaintiff''s predecessors there were witnesses who were represented on the receipt. I am of the view therefore that the learned trial judge was right when he came to the conclusion that it was the predecessors of the plaintiffs who purchased the land on which they carried out their farming operations and gave a portion of it to the defendant''s predecessor, Ghartey.\r\nFrom the testimonies of the two surveyors, CWJ and PW3 who were invited under different circumstances to survey the land in dispute we are left in no doubt that the seven portions of the land which the six predecessors of the plaintiffs and the one predecessor of the defendant occupied after the land had been shared among them were dearly demarcated. There is also the evidence that the seven occupants of the various portions of the land built houses on the land and all of them ilved\r\n \r\nin harmony until the death of Ghartey and the arrival of the defendant on the scene."\r\nWe associate and agree with the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal on the above exhibits save for the following clarification.\r\nThe only exception we wish to make is that, we in this court have had the benefit of the original exhibits, and we have accordingly found out that exhibits 4, 5 and 6 were infact witnessed by predecessors of the plaintiffs in L20/92. This has re-emphasised the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal.\r\nAs a matter of fact, the witness column is at the back of the original receipts, which unfortunately were not re-produced in the photo copies that were made and included in the appeal record.\r\nSave for the above correction, since we agree with the said conclusions, that will end our discussions on the exhibits used and tendered during the trial.\r\nTHE GROUNDS OF APPEAL\r\nWe have in a significant manner already dealt with the grounds of appeal in our discussions, comments, and analysis of the exhibits tendered in this case. We will therefore deal briefly with all the grounds of appeal in the manner in which learned counsel for the defendant argued them.\r\nThe defendant raised the issue of capacity of the plaintiff in suit No L81/92. Since the issue of capacity is very crucial and fundamental, it will be considered and disposed of before we proceed with further comments in this appeal.\r\nGROUND 1 OF APPEAL IN SUIT NO. L81/92\r\n1.	The learned Judges of the Court of Appeal erred when they held,\r\naffirming the holding of the High Court, that the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent had capacity to institute the action against the Defendant/Appellant/Appellant.\r\n \r\nIt appears learned counsel for the defendant might have abandoned this ground because he did not advance arguments in support thereof.\r\nHowever, it has to be noted that, the issue of capacity like jurisdiction is fundamental, and whenever this is raised it must be dealt with early to ensure that the issue of lack of capacity does not affect the substance of the action.\r\nIn this appeal, there is no doubt that the plaintiff herein is a daughter of Kwabena Agyakwa. However, because of the system of inheritance among the Akan generally, which is matrilineal, the plaintiff not being a customary successor to the estate of her father cannot automatically succeed him. However, the plaintiff in her testimony stated that her father gifted the portion of land in dispute to his children. The defendant did not deny the said evidence and infact did not cross-examine the plaintiff when she testified that the land had been gifted to her and her other siblings by their father, Kwabena Agyakwa.\r\nWe accordingly endorse the conclusion of the Court of Appeal when it held thus:-\r\n"the court dealt with the issue of capacity of the plaintiff and came to the conclusion that from the evidence on record the plaintiffs had capacity to bring the action."\r\nThis ground of appeal is thus dismissed.\r\nGROUND 2 IN SUIT NO L 81/92 AND GROUND 3 IN SUIT NO L20/95\r\n2.	The learned Judges of the Court of Appeal erred in entering judgment for the plaintiff/respondent/respondent as she failed to prove title to the land in dispute.\r\n3.	The learned Judges of the Court of Appeal erred in entering judgment for the plaintiff/respondents as they failed to prove title to the land in dispute.\r\nFrom our assessment of the above grounds of appeal, it is our considered view that for the plaintiffs'' to succeed they must be deemed to have led credible evidence to discharge the onus that lies upon them by virtue of their positions\r\n \r\nas plaintiffs as has been laid down in sections 11 and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323.\r\nWe have considered the decisions in the following cases on the burden of persuasion which a plaintiff has to satisfy in civil cases, to wit trials involving title to land, in order to succeed.\r\nThe cases are:\r\nI Ricketts v Addo [1975)2 GLR 158 at 166 CA\r\n2.	Nartey v Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Plant Limited [1987-887 2 GLR 314, per Adade JSC\r\n3.	Odoi y Hammond [1971] GLR CA per Azu-Crabbe .7.A (as he then was)\r\n4.	Odametey v Clocuh & Anr [1989-907 1 GLR 14, at 28 where the Supreme Court spoke with one voice through Taylor JSC of blessed memory.\r\n5.	Ebusuapan yin Kwame Ohember & Anr yrs Nana Obura Asankoma III and Anr unreported unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal suit No. 39/2000 dated it July, 2009, Coram Dotse .7SC presiding, Aryeetey JA as he then was, and Mariama Owusu JA where the court stated the following as steps that are deducible from the ratio in the decisions in Odametey v Clocuh already referred to supra.\r\ni.	It has to be considered whether the plaintiff has been able to make a case upon his or her testimony to entitle him or her to be granted reliefs upon his claim.\r\nii.	Secondly, it has to be considered whether the plaintiff''s case will entitle him to relief in view of the defendant''s evidence.\r\niii.	Thirdly, it has to be considered whether if the plaintiff having failed to make a case from his testimony can rely on the weakness in the\r\ncase of the defendant and ask for relief.\r\n \r\niv. Consideration of the weakness of the defendants case when he testified.\r\nV.	Whether the weaknesses in the defendants case enure to the benefit of the plaintiff''s case.\r\nvi Finally, the court has to consider whether the plaintiff can rely on the weakness of the defendants'' case, to strengthen his case - this latter stage would seem to be contrary to the principle laid down by Webber C.) in Kodilinye v Odu [1935] 2 WA CA, 336 at\r\n337.\r\nApplying the above stages of proof to the circumstances of this appeal, we are of the considered view that the plaintiff have been able to lead credible and convincing evidence by themselves and also supported by their witnesses.\r\nFor example, the plaintiff in suit No L81/92 apart from her own testimony tendered a number of credible exhibits to wit, A, B, C, E, F and court exhibit Z. The probative value of the above exhibits has already been discussed and there is no doubt that the plaintiff has been able to lead credible and acceptable evidence which in our view satisfied the criteria set out in the case of Odametey v Clocuh already referred to supra where Taylor JSC stated the opinion of the Supreme Court thus:\r\n"I think the current principle is quite dear at least since f October 1979 when NRCD 323 came into force. If there was ever a doubt about the true principle, although I am firmly of the view that there has never been any doubt, then NRC/i? 323 has now definitely cleared all possible doubts. The position is thus:-\r\nIf the plaintiff in a civil suit, fails to discharge the onus on him and thus completely fails to make a case for the claim for which he seeks relief, then he cannot rely on the weakness in the defendants case to ask for relief If however, he makes a case which would entitle him to relief if the defendant offers no evidence, then if the case offered by the defendant when he does give evidence discloses any weakness which tends to support the plaintiffs claim, then in such a situation\r\n33\r\n \r\nthe plaintiff is entitled to rely on the weakness of thek.\r\ndefendants case to strengthen his case."\r\nThe change in the decision delivered long ago by Webber 0 in the Kodilinye v Odu case is therefore quite clear.\r\nHaving held that the plaintiff in suit No L 81/92 satisfied the standard of proof set out in the Odametey v Clocuh case supra, we are also of the view that plaintiff''s witnesses namely:\r\n \r\nPW1	-\r\nPW2	-\r\nPW3\r\nPW4\r\n \r\nGhartey Boateng Sampong\r\nAlhaji Mohamed Kwame Osei\r\nEnim Ayeko — Surveyor who prepared exhibits E and 1 Tetteh Narh\r\n \r\nAs a matter of fact, the testimony of PW1 has been so overwhelming in many respects.\r\nThis is because, as a Kwahu citizen we consider him as independent and therefore attach a lot of weight to what he said. He not only confirmed the evidence of the plaintiff in suit No L81/92 but also laid a very strong basis for the case of the plaintiff, the descendants of the Krobo farmers in suit No.L20/92.\r\nIn addition, PW1 demolished the case of the defendant to such an extent that there is no point in wasting time on any further discussions.\r\nOn the other hand, the evidence of the plaintiffs in suit No. 20/92 and their witnesses have also been very credible, consistent and highly probable and convincing. What must be noted is that, in evaluating the case of the plaintiffs in suit No L20/92, the background and foundation evidence led by plaintiff in suit No L 81/92 and the exhibits tendered must be taken into serious contention.\r\nQuite apart from the above, the case of the defendant has been so discredited and is also inconsistent in relation to other pieces of evidence on record that\r\n \r\nwe are not able to accept it. Refer to analysis on exhibits 1, 2 and 3-17. These have been so much discredited that, under the circumstances we dismiss the above two grounds of appeal urged on us by the defendant.\r\nGROUNDS 1 AND 4 IN RESPECT OF SUIT NO L 20/92\r\n 1. The learned Judges of the Court of Appeal erred when they held, affirming the holding of the learned trial Judge, that on the evidence the Krobo farmers purchased the land jointly with G. D. Ghartey.\r\n 4. The learned Judges of the Court of Appeal erred when they held, affirming the holding of the learned trial Judge, that the defendant/ appellant/ appellant had trespassed on plaintiff/respondent/respondent''s land when on the evidence on Record the Respondents had clearly failed to prove that title to the disputed lands were vested in them or that they had right to possession superior to that of the appellant.\r\nIn considering the above two grounds of appeal to this court, we have been minded to take note of the fact that, both the trial High Court and the Court of Appeal have all made concurrent findings of fact of very important issues.\r\nThese facts or issues have been materially and or substantially confirmed by this court. There are well established principles upon which a second appellate court, like this Supreme Court will depart from the findings made by a trial court and concurred in by an appellate court.\r\nSee cases of:\r\n1.	Achoro v Akanfela [1996-97] SCGLR 209, holding 2\r\n2.	Doku v Doku [1992-93] GBR 367\r\n3.	Koglex Ltd (No. 2) vrs Field [2000] SCGLR 175 and\r\n4.	The unreported unanimous decision of this court in suit No. CA/J4/7/09\r\ndated 3rd February 2010, intitutled Assemblies of God Church, Ghana\r\n \r\nvrs Rev. Obeng & others where the Supreme Court spoke with one voice through me as follows:-\r\n"There is this general principle of law which has been\r\nstated and re-stated in several decisions of this court that\r\nwhere findings of fact such as in the instant case have\r\nbeen made by a trial court and concurred in by the first\r\nappellate court, in this case the Court of Appeal, then the\r\nsecond appellate court such as this Supreme Court must be\r\nslow in coming to different conclusions unless it is satisfied\r\nthat there are strong pieces of evidence on record which\r\nare manifestly clear that the findings of the trial court and\r\nthe first appellate court are perverse."\r\nIn the instant appeal, we find no such perverse condition prevailing to warrant this court to interfere and or intervene in the findings of fact so ably made by the trial court and concurred in by the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal.\r\nOn our own, having evaluated the evidence on record, the testimonies of the parties as well as their witnesses, as well as the relevant exhibits in the case, we are of the considered opinion that the finding that the Krobo farmers purchased the land as a result of which W. D. Ghartey became a beneficiary as he was appointed their leader because of his special skill cannot be under estimated.\r\nIn similar fashion, considering the overwhelming evidence on record there is no doubt that the defendant has committed trespass on the land of the Krobo farmers and of the plaintiff''s generally.\r\nIn the first place, the plaintiff''s have been able to prove to our satisfaction the fact that their predecessors acquired the land from the predecessor of the plaintiff in suit No L 81/92.\r\nThe plaintiff therein confirmed it and supported it with relevant and convincing evidence through the tendering of documents.\r\n \r\nSecondly, there have been massive overt acts of ownership established by the plaintiffs about their strong presence on the land.\r\nThirdly, it should be noted that, because the defendant as it were is challenging the title of his predecessor''s grantor i.e. Kwabena Agyakwa, he has not been able to provide any credible documentary evidence save the self serving exhibits I and 2, 3-17, all of which have been discussed supra. Besides, evidence of DW2 clearly showed that the defendant had over 74 Grunshie people on the land. This is clear trespass committed by him.\r\nWe are thus unable to uphold the above grounds of appeal as well. They are accordingly dismissed.\r\nGrounds 3 of appeal in suit No. L 20/92 and Ground 2 of Appeal in suit No. L 81/92 will next be considered.\r\n 3. The learned Judges of the Court of Appeal erred when they held, affirming the holding of the learned trial Judge, that the boundaries of the land owned by Ghartey (the predecessor of the Defendant/Appellant/Appellant are as shown in exhibit Z marked I and Exhibit E.\r\n 2. The learned Judges of the Court of Appeal erred when they held, affirming the decision of the learned trial Judge, that the boundaries of the land owned by Ghartey (the appellant''s predecessor) are as shown in exhibit Z (marked 1) and exhibit E.\r\nIn our evaluation of the above grounds of appeal, we consider the effect and weight not only of the parties testimony in court, but also the importance of the exhibits tendered.\r\nIn the instant appeal, the defendant mentions exhibits E, Z and I all of which are Survey plans. It must be noted that all of them have been prepared under different circumstances. Whilst exhibit E was prepared under the direction of the Eastern Regional Minister, exhibit Z was prepared under the authority of the Court.\r\n \r\nExhibit 1 was prepared as a self serving document by Kwesi Ghartey and has been held not to have any evidential weight and value whatsoever.\r\nUnder the circumstances, the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal cannot be said to be based on speculation. On the contrary, they should be considered as having based their conclusions on hard and acceptable principles of reception of evidence.\r\nThus, where a court ordered the preparation of a survey plan, and the other plan prepared under the auspices of a Regional Minister, where all the parties concerned had the opportunity to indicate and show their lands to the Surveyor in an open and transparent transaction, it is to be considered more credible and respectable exercise than the one sided survey plan prepared for and by the defendants predecessor, e.g. exhibit 1.\r\nIn addition, the plaintiffs in both cases and their witnesses ', '../links/cases/Document (1).pdf', 'Yes', 'ANSAH JSC, DOTSE JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS.) JSC', '2011', 'supreme', '<font face="Times New Roman" size="2"><i>Land law and Conveyancing - Title to land - Declaration of - Sale of land by vendor to a second grantee - Principle of nemo dat quod non habet - Application of.<br>Practice and Procedure - Judgment of Trial Court affirmed by First Appellate Court - Reversal by - Second Appellate Court - Circumstances/Factors to consider.</i></font><br>', 'DR. DATE-BAH JSC', 'Civil', '', 'J4/11/2010', '', '', 'supreme', '2011-03-16', '');
