Court: High Court of Ghana
Year: 1976
Principle(s): Substantial contribution as a basis for joint ownership of property
Court: Court of Appeal (Ghana)
Year: 1982-83
Principle(s): Substantial contribution as a basis for acquiring a beneficial interest in an immovable property. Property jointly owned due to the substantial contributions of a respondent wife.
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 2013
Principle(s): Spouses no longer have to prove substantive contribution before they can be considered joint owners of properties acquired during marriage. A presumption that properties acquired during the marriage are to be shared equally.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2011
Principle(s): When equity is equality will apply; domestic services of a wife amounts to substantive contribution
Court: High Court
Year: 1959
Principle(s): Properties acquired by a man with the assistance of his wife and children are still the properties of the man because it is the customary duty of the wife and children to provide such assistance; Upon a man's death intestate, his self-acquired property becomes family property, vested in his family; any property acquired with the proceeds of family property is itself family property, and is not the self-acquired property of the member of the family so acquiring it.
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 2012
Principle(s): Substantial contribution towards the acquisition of property entitles a spouse to an interest in the property
Court: High Court (Ghana)
Year: 1974
Principle(s): A wife who acquires property from a business she operates separately from her husband is the owner of said property.
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 1989-90
Principle(s): A spouse may have property vested in him or her upon the dissolution of a marriage without having to show that the property was jointly acquired.
Court: High Court Ho
Year: 1961
Principle(s): A member of a family is entitled to occupy any available part of the family land
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 2006
Principle(s): Stool lands vested in the state is not automatically de-vested and re-vested in the original owning stool by virtue of article 267(1) of the 1992 Constitution.
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 2010
Principle(s):
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 2003-2004
Principle(s): When people encroach on lands compulsorily acquired by the state, they are held to be the implied licensees of the state, and section 10 of the Limitations Decree does not apply to prevent the state from recovering the said piece of land unless after the expiration of twelve years from the date the state revokes the implied license.
Court: Privy Council
Year: 1961
Principle(s): Native law or custom in Ghana has progressed so far as to transform the usufructuary right, once it has been reduced into possession, into an estate or interest in the land which the subject can use and deal with as his own, so long as he does not prejudice the right of the paramount stool to its customary services
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1963
Principle(s): Removal of Head of Family: The right of removing head of family is vested in the principal members of the family. Notice of the removal must be given to all principal members. Without such notice, the acts of those present at the meeting cannot be binding on those absent unless they acquiesced.
Court: High Court
Year:
Principle(s): According to native custom, the head is appointed at a meeting of all the accredited elders of the family summoned for that purpose. The meeting at which an appointment is to be made should be convened for that purpose and notice of it should be given to all members of the family entitled, by custom, to participate in the appointment.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1976
Principle(s): The meeting for the appointment of the head of the family may be convened by the most senior member of the family, male or female, by two or more elders or principal members of the family or even by any respectable member of the community, an elder or chief of the quarter, or town, upon the request of members of the family
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1941
Principle(s): When two or more members of a family combine resources to acquire property, the property does not become the private joint property of the two (or more), but rather becomes family property
Court: West African Court of Appeal, Gold Coast
Year:
Principle(s): Abunu vs Abusa; Interest of tenant
Court: West African Court of Appeal
Year: 1956
Principle(s): It is open to principal members of a family, to appoint a head in the absence of a principal who refuses to attend a meeting after invitation.
Court: High Court
Year: 1958
Principle(s): 1. When two or more members of the family purchase land and builds upon said land with assistance of family, the land and the properties thereon becomes family property. 2. The members who contributed to acquire the properly only have a life interest in the land. 3. The surviving family member could not alienate any estate or interest in it which can subsist after his death
Court: High Court
Year: 1974
Principle(s): A member of the family who builds on family land in effective occupation only has a life interest in the house and cannot dispose of the house by will.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1959
Principle(s): Circumstances under which a member of the family can sue to recover/protect family property; of conveyance, mortgage or lease of family land which is on the face of it executed by the head and another member, upon proof timeously made that its execution was without the knowledge and consent of all the principal members of the family, is null and void
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1965
Principle(s): 1. Upon the death of a member of the family who is succeeded by another member of the family, the responsibility to litigate the family’s title to the self-acquired property of the deceased member passes from the head of the family to the successor of the deceased. 2. Conveyance of family property by members of the family without the indispensable person, either the head of the family or the successor (as the case is here), is void ab initio and confers no interest or title in the land on the purchaser. 3. Alienation of family property by the head of the family or a successor purporting to be with the consent and concurrence of the principal members of the family is voidable at the instance of the family if they act timeously
Court: WACA
Year:
Principle(s): Principal members of the family cannot alienate land without the consent of the head of the family. Any such alienation is void ab initio.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year:
Principle(s): Mode of acquiring allodial title, heritability of usufructuary title, rights of usufruct
Court: Court
Year: 1957
Principle(s): Rights of Usufruct, Means of Acquiring Allodial Title, Alienation of Family Property, Termination of Usufructuary Title
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2001-2002
Principle(s): Presumption of joint tenancy under common law; termination of joint tenancy; right of survivorship
Court: High Court
Year: 1957
Principle(s): 1. Stool has the allodial title to stool land; 2. A subject can obtain a usufruct in stool land by cultivating virgin stool land. 3. A subject can alienate his usufruct to another subject without the consent of the stool. 4. It is better for the stool to give a lease of a stool's land to a stranger than for the stranger to acquire a usufruct from a subject. 5. If the stool alienates land over which a subject has a usufruct but does not obtain the consent and concurrence of the usufruct, the alienation is of no effect.
Court: High Court
Year: 1959
Principle(s): A stool may acquire an allodial title to lands through its subjects (cultivation and use of unoccupied lands by the subjects of the stool)
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1959
Principle(s): The heads of a sub-stool are the proper persons to alienate lands belonging to the sub-stool (quarter). Lands in the present case did not belong to the entire James Town Stool, but to various quarters (Alata, Akumajay, and Sempe quarters).
Court: Court
Year: 1975
Principle(s): Ejectment under Section 17(1)(h) of Act 220
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1987-88
Principle(s): In determining who owns land (allodial title), the courts look at evidence such as past grants of the land, claims of title and resistance to such claims, among others. Allodial title can be lost by acquiescence; Family can be hold allodial title; Innocent purchaser for value without notice; Meaning of adverse possession.
Court: Privy Council
Year: 1961
Principle(s): Meaning of allodial title; rights of usufructuaries; sale as a means of losing allodial title
Court: High Court
Year: 1959
Principle(s): When the state compulsorily acquires land, payment of compensation is done to the allodial title holder and not the usufructuary. The usufructuary may, however, be entitled to receive some compensation from the Stool from the monies paid to it.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1967
Principle(s): 1. The allodial interest in a land can be owned by the stool, tribe, family, or individual. 2. In the present case, the families own allodial interests in lands in Ningo. 3. When a licensee denies the title of his licensor, the licensor is entitled to eject him.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1989-1990
Principle(s): A sub-stool can hold an allodial interest.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2010
Principle(s): A family can be a holder of an allodial title; Acts of ownership are evidence of being the allodial title holder; Conquest, settlement, and adverse possession are means of acquiring allodial title; Allodial title may be lost be acquiescence
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1905
Principle(s): 1. No land is ownerless. 2. Land may be owned by a paramount stool, a subordinate stool, the family, or an individual. 3. Subjects of a stool have the right to use stool lands.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1959
Principle(s): Allodial title can be acquired through a purchase; A usufructuary has a possessory interest in land and are entitled to remain on the land and have the same protection as if they were in fact the owners.
Court: Privy Council
Year: 1961
Principle(s): Land is saleable in Ashanti region; It can be sold absolutely and the buyer can acquire the allodial interest; The non-payment of tributes or rents to anyone in respect of land may be evidence that the party in possession holds the allodial interest in the land.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1972
Principle(s): Lands in Kokomlemle are owned by the Ga, Gbese, and Korle stools. All three stools must consent and concur before any valid alienation of land can be made.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1997
Principle(s): Disposition of land without the concurrence of the Minister of Lands is not void ab initio, as said concurrence can be subsequently obtained. A registered instrument will take priority over an earlier unregistered instrument if the registered instrument was obtained without fraud and without notice of the earlier unregistered instrument.
Court: High Court
Year:
Principle(s): The vesting of stool lands in the President in trust does not mean the stools have no rights over the vested stool lands.
Court: Supreme Court
Year:
Principle(s): 1. A grant by a caretaker without the consent and concurrence of the stool occupant is void. 2. A grant by the stool occupant (in this case, Osu Manche) without the consent and concurrence of his elders is void. 3. Once a person does not have a valid title, no amount of registration will give him a valid title.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2018
Principle(s): 1. The grant of stool land is valid if made by the occupant and the principal councillors of the stool. 2. If the occupant makes a grant with the consent of a minority of the principal councillors, the grant is voidable (not void). 3. A caretaker of stool lands cannot make grants of stool lands by himself. The grants must be ratified by the occupant. 4. Article 267(3) refers to a formal documentary grant.
Court: High Court
Year:
Principle(s): 1. The occupant of the stool has an inherent right to maintain an action in respect of stool land. 2. The vesting of stool lands in the president does not take away the right of the occupant to maintain an action in respect of stool lands.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1976
Principle(s): 1. Section 8 of Act 123 does not require the concurrence of the Minister to precede the disposition of stool land. 2. A violation of a covenant on sub-lease or assignment does not automatically render the sub-lease or assignment void. Rather, it gives the lessor a right to determine (terminate) the lease or damages.
Court: Court
Year: 1980
Principle(s): The management of stool property by chiefs falls within the customary duties of a chief.
Court: High Court
Year: 1957
Principle(s): 1. An alienation by the occupant of a stool, acting alone or with a linguist or an elder (just one), is voidable. 2. A grant by the occupant of the stool with the consent and concurrence of the principal councillors is a grant by the stool. 3. An alienation by the elders of the stool, however large, is void ab initio.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1966
Principle(s): 1. Stool lands cannot be alienated without the involvement of the elders of that stool. 2. A document by which stool land is alienated is not binding on the stool unless the elders or at all events the linguist of the stool is party to the alienation.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1981
Principle(s): 1. The occupant of the stool is the only person that can sue in respect of stool property. 2. The court will not extend the principle in Kwan v Nyieni, a case on family land management, to stool land management. 3. A reigning chief cannot be called upon to account.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1991
Principle(s): 1. Where the occupant of a stool is unlikely to commence an action in respect of stool property, a subject may commence such an action. 2. The court will not allow the principle of non-accountability of stool occupants to be projected against a statutory requirement that stool property be paid into an appropriate account.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1989
Principle(s): 1. A mortgagor’s equity of redemption is inviolable. After the payment of the loan amount, the mortgagor (plaintiffs) could redeem the property; 2. A mortgagor’s right of redemption arises from the date the mortgage was made. Here, the mortgagor could have redeemed the property if the loan was repaid on the same day; 3. Once a mortgage, always a mortgage. Consequently, a mortgage cannot be converted into a lease.
Court: WACA
Year:
Principle(s): 1. The allodial or absolute title can be acquired by conquest or by discovery and settlement. The Labadi Stool acquired the allodial title by conquest. 2. Long occupation of land does not transform into ownership. The appellants, despite occupying the land for four generations, did not become the absolute owners of the land. 3. The use of land by subjects of a stool is not adverse to the stool’s ownership.