|
JUDGEMENT
BY COURT:
The 2nd Claimant
Appellant, hereinafter referred
to as Appellant, filed an appeal
to this Court on 7th
October, 1999, against the
direction of the Chief Lands
Registrar, submitting, this
matter to the Land Title
Adjudicating Committee.
By the appellant’s written
submission filed on 27th
July, 2009, the Appellant stated
that in the course of the
adjudicating he successfully
applied to dismiss the matter
before the committee for want of
jurisdiction, and referred to
pages 102, 103, 108 and 110 of
the record of proceedings.
The pages referred to are the
motion on notice to dismiss the
matter for lack of jurisdiction
filed on 24th July,
1998 being pages 102 to 103 and
supplementary affidavit being
pages 108 to 110. There is no
indication that the tribunal
gave a ruling for the Appellant
to appeal against it. What is
disclosed by the record of
proceedings is that on 3rd
February, 1999, when the
Tribunal convened, the suit was
adjourned to 24th
February, 1999 to enable Mr.
Baiden who was the Counsel for
the 1st Claimant, to
study the papers. It was after
this adjournment that the
appellant appealed on 7th
October, 1999.
Since there had been no ruling,
can the Appellant apply to this
Court for the exercise of this
Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction?
The right to apply for the
exercise of the High Courts
Appellate Jurisdiction is
contained in Section 32 (3) of
the Land Title Registration Act
1986 (P.N.D.C.L 152). It says
“a person aggrieved by an Order
or decision of the Adjudication
committee under subsection (2)
may appeal in the prescribed
manner to the High Court and the
Court may annul or confirm with
or without modification the
order or decision.” Since there
is no decision of the
Adjudication Committee, the
Appellant cannot invoke the
Appellate Jurisdiction of this
Court.
From the Appellant’s Notice of
Appeal, one can infer that the
Appellant knows that there is no
decision by the Adjudication
Committee so he purported to
appeal against the direction of
the Chief Lands Registrar which
direction was made before 11th
day of January 1993 when the
committee first sat.
The Appellant has not shown
under which enactment the
Appellant is appealing against
the direction. From the record
of proceedings, the parties
first appeared before the
Committee or Tribunal on 11th
January, 1993. After several
appearances, a Motion for
Interlocutory Injunction was
filed on 5th January,
1994. On 24th
January, 1994 the Appellant
filed an affidavit in
opposition. At that time all
the parties were represented by
Counsel.
On 15th March, 1994,
the Tribunal granted the
application for Interlocutory
Injunction. On 6th
April, 1994, the Appellant
applied to the Tribunal to
dismiss the claimant’s action,
not on the ground of
jurisdiction but on other
grounds.
On 21st April, 1994,
the committee ruled that the
parties were not ad idem as to
the land in dispute. A surveyor
was appointed to prepare a
Cadestal plan and same was
complied with. On 23rd
August, 1994, another
application for Interlocutory
Injunction was applied for by
the Claimant and on 25th
August, 1994 same was granted.
On 17th October,
1994, the Appellant applied to
have the Injunction set aside,
but same was refused on 8th
December, 1994. The Appellant
never appealed against this.
Since this was an Interlocutory
Order, the Appellant should have
appealed against it within 14
days from the date of the order
or decision, and this must be
done with leave of the court.
This is contained in Order 51
Rule 3(2) of C.I. 47 and Section
21 (3) of the courts Act 1993
(Act 459).
Since this ruling was delivered
on 8th December,
1994, even if there was an
appeal properly so called, it
would not have been an appeal
properly so called since the
appeal was filed on 7th
October, 1999; almost five years
thereafter and without leave of
the Court.
The appeal is therefore
dismissed. The respondent is
awarded cost of GH¢500.00.
Counsel: Mr.
Paul Opoku for 2nd
Claimant Applicant
Mr. Emmanuel Adabayeri for
the respondent.
(SGD)MR. JUSTICE
S.H. OCRAN
Justice of
the High Court
|
