AMISSAH J.A.: It is not disputed that the plaintiff’s family, the Nikoi Olai stool family (hereafter called the “Nikoi Olai family” for short) are the owners of a tract of land called Mukose lands. It is also not disputed that adjacent to the Mukose lands is another tract, known as Dome lands, owned by the Onamrokor Adain family (hereafter called the “Onamrokor family”) of which the defendant, now respondent, was the head. The real controversy in this case is as to the proper boundary which demarcates these respective lands. The plaintiff, now appellant, draws his relevant boundary at a place which the respondent says eats into their Dome lands while the respondent takes a boundary which the appellant says lies within their Mukose lands. Thus we have the all too familiar situation in disputes of this kind where each of the parties lays claim to a parcel of land lying in between undisputed properties belonging to them. The question for the trial court was whether the appellant’s claim …
ROBERTSON
V.
REINDOR
(1971) JELR 69095 (CA)
Court of Appeal 29 Mar 1971 Ghana
Case
Key Passages 3
Citing Cases 44
BriefBot Summary
- The Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of issue estoppel (estoppel per rem judicatam) applied to bar the plaintiff’s family from relitigating ownership of land previously adjudicated in Reindorf v. Amadu [1962] 1 G.L.R. 508, S.C., cov
Case Details
Judges:AZU CRABBE JA,AMISSAH JA,ANIN J.A.
Counsel:A. E. AKUOKO (DR. SETH TWUM WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANT; NELSON-COFIE FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT.,JOE REINDORF FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Other Citations:[1971] 2 GLR 289
There's more. Sign in to continue reading.
judy.legal is the comprehensive database of case law and legislation from Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria. Gain seamless access to over 77,000 cases, recent judgments, statutes, and rules of court.