Law Author

Abotsi, In re, Kwao v Nortey [1984-86] 1 GLR 144, CA

– The case was an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Accra, which dismissed a suit for a declaration of title to a piece of land in Kumasi¹².

– The appellant, Kwao, was the maternal uncle and guardian of Abotsi, an infant. He claimed that he inherited the land from his mother, who was the sister of Abotsi’s father. He alleged that the respondent, Nortey, had trespassed on the land and sold part of it to two co-respondents. He sought a declaration of title and an injunction against the respondents¹².

– The respondent denied the appellant’s claim and contended that he was the owner of the land by virtue of a previous judgment of the High Court in 1930, which held that he and his co-defendants had acquired the land by adverse possession. He also argued that the appellant was estopped by the 1930 judgment from asserting any title to the land¹².

– The High Court, per Smith J., dismissed the appellant’s suit and upheld the respondent’s defence. The court held that the 1930 judgment was binding on the parties and that the appellant had no title to the land. The court also held that the appellant had failed to prove his alleged inheritance from his mother or any possession of the land¹².

– The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the High Court. The court held that there was no error in law or fact in the 1930 judgment and that it was conclusive on the issue of title. The court also held that there was no evidence to support the appellant’s claim of inheritance or possession¹².

– The relevance of the case is that it shows how the legal system in Ghana deals with the issue of estoppel by judgment and res judicata in civil cases, especially in relation to land disputes. It also illustrates how the courts apply the doctrine of adverse possession and its effect on title to land.

(1) Equity & Succession LAW I Course Outline – GHANA INSTITUTE OF … – Studocu. https://www.studocu.com/row/document/kwame-nkrumah-university-of-science-and-technology/law-of-immovable-property/equity-succession-law-i-course-outline/20449832.

(2) Estoppel by Judicial Decision in Ghana | Journal of African Law …. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-african-law/article/abs/estoppel-by-judicial-decision-in-ghana/D916B6F56E786A649E42F56302BD1B9A.

(3) ABOTSI (AN INFANT), IN RE; KWAO V. NORTEY AND OTHERS. https://lite.judy.legal/amp/case/abotsi-an-infant-re-kwao-v-nortey-others-c53dc.

A v United Kingdom [2002] All ER (D) 264 (Dec)

The case A v United Kingdom [2002] All ER (D) 264 (Dec) was a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by a woman who claimed that her right of access to court was violated by the absence of legal aid to challenge a defamatory statement made about her in Parliament¹. The statement was made by a Member of Parliament (MP) who accused her of being involved in a fraud scheme. The statement was protected by the absolute parliamentary privilege, which means that MPs cannot be sued for anything they say in Parliament.

The ECHR held that the right of access to court was not absolute, but may be subject to limitations, as long as they do not impair the very essence of the right¹. The court also recognized that the parliamentary privilege was within the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the United Kingdom, and that it served a legitimate aim of protecting the freedom of Parliament¹. The court noted that the applicant was not left entirely without remedy, as she could have sought limited legal advice or a conditional fee arrangement¹. Therefore, the court found no violation of Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.

The relevance of the case is that it illustrates the balance between the right of access to court and the parliamentary privilege, and the role of the ECHR in reviewing the limitations imposed by the national authorities on this right. The case also shows the importance of legal aid and alternative funding mechanisms for ensuring effective access to justice for individuals who cannot afford legal representation. The case is cited by other cases that deal with similar issues, such as defamation, human rights, and constitutional law²³.

(1) A v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 2002 – swarb.co.uk. https://swarb.co.uk/a-v-the-united-kingdom-ECHR-17-Dec-2002/.
(2) PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES – SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3789181_code2983901.pdf?abstractid=3789181&mirid=1.
(3) BAILII – BAILII OpenLaw – Immigration and Asylum. https://www.bailii.org/openlaw/immigration_and_asylum.html.

Aboagye De Costa v Disciplinary Committee of General Legal Council [1991] 2 GLR 479, CA

– The case was an appeal from a decision of a disciplinary committee constituted under the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32), which found the appellant, Aboagye De Costa, guilty of grave professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for one year¹.

– The appellant was a lawyer who had a friendship with one Nana Bosompem, the complainant. The complainant alleged that he had given the appellant money and instructions to handle various legal matters for him, but the appellant had failed to do so. He also accused the appellant of acting against his interests in some cases¹.

– The appellant denied the allegations and claimed that he had only given legal advice to the complainant on a few occasions, without any formal retainer or obligation. He also challenged the validity and admissibility of some evidence presented by the complainant¹.

– The disciplinary committee found the appellant guilty of four charges of professional misconduct, namely: (a) failing to account for money received from the complainant; (b) failing to act diligently and faithfully for the complainant; (c) acting against the complainant’s interests in some cases; and (d) making false and misleading statements to the committee¹.

– The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the disciplinary committee had erred in law and fact in its findings and order. He also sought a stay of execution of the order pending the appeal¹.

– The Court of Appeal, per Francois J.S.C., dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the disciplinary committee. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the charges against the appellant and that the disciplinary committee had acted fairly and properly in its proceedings. The court also refused to grant a stay of execution, as it found no merit in the appeal¹.

– The relevance of the case is that it shows how the legal system in Ghana deals with the issue of professional ethics and discipline among lawyers, especially in relation to their duties to their clients and to the court. It also illustrates how the courts review and uphold the decisions of the disciplinary committee, which is an independent body established under the Legal Profession Act.

(1) ABOAGYE DA COSTA V. DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL …. https://lite.judy.legal/amp/case/aboagye-da-costa-v-disciplinary-committee-general-legal-council-bab37.

A v United Kingdom (Case 100/ 1997/ 884/ 1096) [1998] 2 FLR 959; [1999] 27 EHRR 611

The case A v United Kingdom (Case 100/ 1997/ 884/ 1096) [1998] 2 FLR 959; [1999] 27 EHRR 611 is a landmark case in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that concerned the issue of corporal punishment of children by their parents or guardians. The applicant, A, was a British boy who was repeatedly hit with a garden cane by his stepfather, causing him bruises and welts. The stepfather was charged with assault but acquitted by a jury on the ground of “reasonable chastisement”, which was a defence under English common law. A complained to the ECtHR that the UK had failed to protect him from inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The ECtHR found that the UK had violated Article 3 of the ECHR by allowing the defence of reasonable chastisement to be applied in A’s case. The Court held that the treatment inflicted on A was sufficiently severe to amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, and that the State had an obligation to protect children from such treatment by their parents or guardians. The Court also noted that there was a growing consensus among European and international legal instruments that corporal punishment of children should be prohibited. The Court awarded A damages and costs.

The relevance of the case is that it established that corporal punishment of children by their parents or guardians is incompatible with Article 3 of the ECHR, and that the State has a positive duty to protect children from such treatment. The case also contributed to the development of a European and international standard against corporal punishment of children, and influenced the reform of domestic laws in the UK and other countries. The case is considered a milestone in the protection of children’s rights in Europe. ¹²⁴⁵

(1) JUDGMENT E U R O P E A N C O U R T O F H U M A N R I G H T S. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-58232&filename=001-58232.pdf.
(2) A v. United Kingdom | CRIN. https://archive.crin.org/en/library/legal-database/v-united-kingdom-0.html.
(3) A v UK (1999) – e-lawresources.co.uk. http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/A-v-UK-%281999%29.php.
(4) European Court of Human Rights: A v UK (1998) – CIRP. https://cirp.org/library/legal/A_v_UK1998/.
(5) A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] – 3455/05 – Council of Europe. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=002-1647&filename=002-1647.pdf&TID=ihgdqbxnfi.

Abiba Ali v Alhaji Ali (1939) 5 WACA 94

– The case was an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Gold Coast, which dismissed a suit for a declaration of title to a piece of land in Accra¹².

– The appellant, Abiba Ali, was the daughter of one Ali, who died in 1908 leaving a will. The will devised a house and a land (known as the Zongo land) to his senior wife Madame Amina, his daughter Meriam Ali, and his son Mama Ali (the respondent). The will also stated that the house and the land were never to be sold¹².

– The appellant claimed that she inherited the Zongo land from her sister Meriam Ali, who died in 1929. She alleged that the respondent had trespassed on the land and sold part of it to a third party. She sought a declaration of title and an injunction against the respondent¹².

– The respondent denied the appellant’s claim and contended that he was the sole owner of the Zongo land by virtue of a previous judgment of the High Court in 1930, which held that the will gave him and his co-devisees an absolute interest in the property, subject to an invalid restraint on alienation. He also argued that the appellant was estopped by the 1930 judgment from asserting any title to the land¹².

– The High Court, per Smith J., dismissed the appellant’s suit and upheld the respondent’s defence. The court held that the 1930 judgment was binding on the parties and that the appellant had no title to the land. The court also held that the appellant had failed to prove her alleged inheritance from her sister or any possession of the land¹².

– The appellant appealed to the West African Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the High Court. The court held that there was no error in law or fact in the 1930 judgment and that it was conclusive on the issue of title. The court also held that there was no evidence to support the appellant’s claim of inheritance or possession¹².

– The relevance of the case is that it shows how the legal system in Ghana deals with the issue of wills and succession, especially in relation to customary law and Islamic law. It also illustrates how the courts apply the doctrine of estoppel by judgment and res judicata in civil cases³.

(1) Abiba Ali v. Alhaji Mama Ali | Privy Council | Judgment | Law | CaseMine. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49623607dba348f016e0e.

(2) Abiba Ali v Alhaji Mama Ali (West Africa) – CaseMine. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b4dc2502c94e07cccd23d5d.

(3) The comprehensive database of African case law and legislation | judy.legal. https://www.judy.legal/case/abiba-ali-plaintiff-respondent-v-alhaji-ali-defendant-appellant.

A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2)[2005] UKHL 71; [2006] 2 AC 221; [2006] 1 All ER 575

The case A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) ¹ was a UK constitutional law case, concerning the rule of law and the admissibility of evidence obtained by torture. The case involved ten men who were certified and detained as suspected international terrorists under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The certification was based on information obtained by torture inflicted by foreign officials without the complicity of the British authorities. The men appealed their certification and claimed that the tainted information should not have been admitted. The House of Lords held that such information was indeed inadmissible in proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, as it violated the common law and the Torture Convention.

The relevance of the case is that it affirmed the principle that torture and its fruits are abhorrent to the English common law and to international law, and that no court should rely on such evidence to deprive a person of his liberty or rights. The case also highlighted the tension between national security and human rights, and the role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. The case has been cited as a landmark decision in the field of human rights law and constitutional law.

(1) A v Home Secretary (No 2) – Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_v_Home_Secretary_%28No_2%29.
(2) ICD – A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2) – Asser …. https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/901/A-v-Secretary-of-State-for-the-Home-Department-%28No-2%29/.
(3) A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home …. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051208/aand-1.htm.
(4) A v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_v_Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department.
(5) undefined. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051208/aand.pdf.

Abiam v The Republic [1976] 1 GLR 270

– The case was an appeal from a conviction for robbery with violence, which was an offence under section 149 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29)¹.

– The appellant, Abiam, was accused of robbing a woman of her money and jewellery at gunpoint, along with two other accomplices. He was identified by the victim and a witness at the scene of the crime and at an identification parade. He denied the charge and claimed that he was elsewhere at the time of the robbery¹².

– The trial judge, per Amissah J., found him guilty and sentenced him to death. The judge relied on the evidence of identification and rejected the alibi defence of the appellant. The judge also held that the appellant had used violence by pointing a gun at the victim and threatening to shoot her¹².

– The appellant appealed to the High Court, arguing that the identification evidence was unreliable and that there was no proof of violence. He also challenged the admissibility of a statement he made to the police, which he claimed was obtained by coercion¹².

– The High Court, per Osei-Hwere J., dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court held that the identification evidence was credible and corroborated by other circumstances. The court also held that pointing a gun at a person and threatening to shoot constituted violence within the meaning of section 149. The court further held that the statement of the appellant was voluntary and admissible¹².

– The relevance of the case is that it shows how the legal system in Ghana deals with the issue of robbery with violence, which is a serious offence that carries the death penalty. It also illustrates how the courts evaluate and weigh identification evidence and alibi defence in criminal cases³.

(1) Ampah AND Another v – Case brief – AMPAH AND ANOTHER v. THE REPUBLIC …. https://www.studocu.com/en-us/document/trine-university/institutional-corrections-and-law/ampah-and-another-v-case-brief/32633174.

(2) Donkor v. THE Republic – DONKOR v. THE REPUBLIC [1976] 1 GLR 481 …. https://www.studocu.com/row/document/ghana-institute-of-management-and-public-administration/law/donkor-v-the-republic/36983608.

(3) ABIAM V. THE REPUBLIC | HIGH COURT | GHANA | 29 JAN 1976 | (1976) JELR …. https://lite.judy.legal/amp/case/abiam-v-republic-0ae7a.

A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56; [2005] 2 AC 68; [2005] 3 All ER 169

The case A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56¹ was a landmark decision by the House of Lords, which held that the indefinite detention of foreign suspects of terrorism without trial under section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The case involved nine appellants who were detained under the 2001 Act as suspected terrorists, but could not be deported because they faced a risk of torture in their home countries. They challenged their detention on the grounds that it violated their rights under article 5 (right to liberty) and article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR.

The House of Lords, by a majority of eight to one, allowed their appeals and made a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the ECHR into UK law. The majority reasoned that section 23 of the 2001 Act was disproportionate and discriminatory, as it only applied to foreign nationals and not to British citizens who posed the same threat. The majority also rejected the argument that the courts should defer to the executive and the parliament on matters of national security, and affirmed their duty to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights.

The case was significant for several reasons:

It was the first time that the House of Lords made a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998, which showed the limits of parliamentary sovereignty and the strength of judicial review.
It was a rare instance of judicial dissent by Lord Hoffmann, who went further than the majority and argued that section 23 of the 2001 Act was not only incompatible with the ECHR, but also with the UK constitution and its commitment to human rights.
It sparked a public debate on the balance between security and liberty, and prompted the government to replace section 23 of the 2001 Act with a new regime of control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which applied to both British and foreign suspects.

(1) A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56. https://lawprof.co/public-law/proportionality-review-cases/a-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2004-ukhl-56/.
(2) A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56. https://lawprof.co/public-law/proportionality-review-cases/a-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2004-ukhl-56/.
(3) A v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_v_Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department.
(4) A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home …. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051208/aand-1.htm.
(5) A v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Wikiwand. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/A_v_Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department.
(6) A and Others v UK – Belmarsh Case – LawTeacher.net. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/a-and-others-v-uk.php.

Abdulai III v The Republic [1989-90] 1 GLR; 348, CA

The case was an appeal from a conviction for contempt of court, which was an offence under section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30)¹.
The appellant, Abdulai III, was the chief of Bole and a defendant in a civil suit concerning a land dispute. He was ordered by the High Court to produce certain documents relating to the land, but he failed to do so. He also failed to appear in court on several occasions, despite being duly served with summons¹².
The High Court, per Aikins J., found him guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. The court held that the appellant had deliberately disobeyed the court’s orders and shown disrespect to the administration of justice¹².
The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that he had not been given a fair trial and that the sentence was excessive. He also claimed that he had not received the summons and that he had valid reasons for not producing the documents¹².
The Court of Appeal, per Wiredu JA, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court held that the appellant had been given ample opportunity to defend himself and that there was sufficient evidence to prove his contempt. The court also held that the sentence was appropriate, considering the gravity of the offence and the need to uphold the dignity and authority of the court¹².
The relevance of the case is that it shows how the legal system in Ghana deals with the issue of contempt of court, which is a serious offence that undermines the rule of law and the administration of justice. It also illustrates how the courts exercise their discretion in imposing sanctions for contempt, taking into account the circumstances of each case³.

(1) FRANCIS DEMU @ DIESEL, FULANI ABDULAI V. THE REPUBLIC. https://lite.judy.legal/amp/case/francis-demu-diesel-fulani-abdulai-v-the-republic-6f53.
(2) Abudulai Mohammed v. THE Republic – [1971] 1 G.L. 191 … – Studocu. https://www.studocu.com/row/document/ghana-institute-of-management-and-public-administration/law/abudulai-mohammed-v-the-republic/26109441.
(3) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT ACCRA … – GHALII. https://media.ghalii.org/files/judgments/ghasc/2011/13/2011-ghasc-13_0.pdf.
(4) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE – GHALII. https://media.ghalii.org/files/judgments/ghasc/2011/2/2011-ghasc-2.pdf.

A v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14; [2006] 2 All ER 457; [2006] 2 WLR 690

The case of A v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14; [2006] 2 All ER 457; [2006] 2 WLR 690 is a landmark case on the right to education under Article 2 of Protocol 1 (A2P1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case involved a student (A) who was accused of arson and excluded from school for an indefinite period pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The school did not follow the proper procedures for exclusion and did not provide any alternative education for A during his exclusion. A claimed that his right to education was violated and sought damages from the school.

The House of Lords held that the school’s appeal succeeded and that A was not entitled to damages. However, the court also recognized that the school had acted unlawfully and that A’s right to education had been impaired. The court discussed the nature and scope of the right to education under A2P1 and the limitations that can be imposed on it by the state. The court also highlighted the problems with the statutory framework governing exclusions in England and Wales and suggested that a declaration of incompatibility might have been appropriate if it had been sought by A.

The relevance of the case is that it clarified the meaning and content of the right to education under A2P1 and its relationship with domestic law. It also exposed the flaws in the system of exclusions and prompted reforms to ensure better protection for students’ rights. The case also raised important questions about the role of courts in enforcing human rights and the remedies available for human rights violations.

(1) Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School: HL 22 Mar 2006. https://swarb.co.uk/ali-v-head-teacher-and-governors-of-lord-grey-school-hl-22-mar-2006/.
(2) Ali v Lord Grey School – publications.parliament.uk. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060322/Ali.pdf.
(3) Judgments – Ali (FC) (Respondent) v. Headteacher and Governors of Lord …. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060322/ali-4.htm.
(4) Ali v Head and Governors of Lord Grey School: QBD 27 Jun 2003. https://swarb.co.uk/ali-v-head-and-governors-of-lord-grey-school-qbd-27-jun-2003/.