An analysis of Blackmore v Klutse [2025] GHASC 30
Land litigation in Ghana often turns less on who owns land and more on where that land actually lies. The Supreme Court’s decision in Blackmore v Klutse [2025] GHASC 30, delivered on 30 April 2025, is a classic example. It is a case about boundaries, survey plans, and how far appellate courts should go when two lower courts agree but get it wrong.
How the dispute started
The dispute traces back to Kwabenya in Accra. In 2002, Larry Blackmore purchased two plots of land from Nii Iddrisu Aya Tettey. He later registered the land and was issued Land Title Certificate No. GA 22098 in January 2006. After taking possession, he developed the land and put up a five-bedroom house.
Trouble began years later when Bernard Klutse moved onto what Blackmore said was part of his land and began constructing a fence wall and laying a foundation. Even after the Accra Metropolitan Assembly intervened, the construction continued. Blackmore sued, seeking declaration of title, trespass, recovery of possession, and an injunction.
Klutse’s response shifted the focus of the case. He denied trespass and claimed that it was Blackmore who had encroached onto his land. He said he bought his land in 2009 from a person who traced title to the same family. According to him, the dispute was not about ownership at all but about boundaries.
What the lower courts decided
At the High Court, a surveyor appointed by the court prepared a composite plan by superimposing both parties’ site plans. The composite plan revealed a disputed hatched area. The surveyor’s evidence was clear on one key point: Blackmore’s site plan largely corresponded with the land on the ground, while Klutse’s did not.
Despite this, the High Court dismissed Blackmore’s claim entirely. It upheld Klutse’s counterclaim, declared him owner of the land described in his pleadings, granted a perpetual injunction against Blackmore, and awarded GH¢50,000 in damages for trespass.
Blackmore appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, although it reduced the damages to GH¢5,000. With both courts aligned against him, Blackmore turned to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s approach
The Supreme Court began by reminding itself of a settled principle. Where the High Court and Court of Appeal make concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court will not interfere unless there is a clear error that has caused a miscarriage of justice.
That caution, however, did not save the lower courts in this case.
Why the concurrent findings failed
The Supreme Court found several serious problems.
First, the evidence of the court-appointed surveyor had been misunderstood and misapplied. The composite plan showed that the land Klutse occupied on the ground did not align with the land described in his site plan or counterclaim. Blackmore’s land, by contrast, largely matched both his claim and his registered title.
Second, the High Court’s findings were internally inconsistent. It accepted that Blackmore’s land title certificate was valid and unrebutted, yet inexplicably refused to grant him declaration of title. At the same time, it granted title to Klutse over land that, on the evidence, was not the land he actually occupied.
Third, the Supreme Court emphasized priority in time. Blackmore acquired his land in 2002 and registered it in 2006. Klutse’s deed of assignment was dated 2011. By virtue of section 5 of the Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDCL 152), Klutse was deemed to have constructive notice of Blackmore’s registered interest, whether or not he conducted a search.
The final decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
It declared Blackmore the owner of the land covered by Land Title Certificate No. GA 22098, ordered recovery of possession of any encroached portion, and granted a perpetual injunction restraining Klutse from further interference.
However, the Court declined to award damages for trespass, noting that there was no clear evidence that permanent structures had been erected on the specific disputed portion.
Costs of GH¢50,000 were awarded in favour of Blackmore.
Why this case matters
Three lessons stand out.
First, land title certificates still carry real weight. While they are not indefeasible, they are powerful evidence when supported by accurate survey work.
Second, boundary disputes demand technical care. Composite plans and survey evidence are not formalities to be glossed over; they are often the heart of the case.
Third, concurrent findings are not untouchable. When lower courts misapply evidence or reach conclusions that do not logically follow from the record, the Supreme Court will step in.
For landowners, buyers, lawyers, and surveyors, Blackmore v Klutse reminds that in land litigation, precision matters and mistakes at the margins can decide everything.
