Land – Ownership -
Declaration of title - Capacity
– Res judicata - Whether or not
the judgment is against the
weight of the evidence –Whether
or not the plaintiffs are bona
fide grantees of the land by
virtue of Land Certificates Nos.
GA 9043 and GA 13523 - Whether
or not the land in dispute forms
part of Kle Musum Quarter land
at Teshie - Whether or not 3rd
defendant’s title has priority
over plaintiffs and their
grantor - Whether or not the
plaintiffs’ registration is
fraudulent.
HEADNOTES
The case was commenced in 2000 and
concerns a parcel of land at
Okpoi-Gonno in Accra. In the
course of the litigation 1st
defendant died and was
substituted and 2nd
defendant too died but he was
not substituted. 3rd
defendant was originally not a
party to the suit but he applied
and was joined. The plaintiffs’
claim to the land in dispute was
based on purchase form Bortei
Alabi family of Nungua who
acquired it by customary grant
from the Nungua Stool, had it
documented in 1991 and
registered under the Land Title
Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL
152) with Land Certificate No GA
9043 dated 16th March
1994. Upon the transfer of the
land 2nd plaintiff
was issued a Land Certificate No
GA 13523 dated 22/3/1999. In
their statements of defence the
defendants contended that the
land claimed by plaintiffs fell
within land of Kle Musum
Quarter/Tsie We Family of Teshie
so they counter claimed for
declaration of title. The 1st
and 2nd defendants
were sued because, according to
the plaintiffs, they sold part
of their land to persons who
started to build on it and 3rd
defendant was joined to the suit
for the reason that he alleged
to be the head of Tsie We
family. However, this alleged
capacity of 3rd
defendant was vigorously
challenged by the 1st
and 2nd defendants
who were members of that family.
HELD
In the conclusion of his statement of
case 1st defendant,
submitted that the overwhelming
evidence on record supported the
judgment of the Court of Appeal.
We disagree with that submission
and have already in this opinion
explained the reasons for our
position that the judgment of
the Court of Appeal is not
supported by the evidence on
record. In the result, we find
merit in the appeal and
accordingly allow same. We set
aside the judgment of the Court
of Appeal dated 4th
June, 2015 and restore the
judgment of the High Court dated
4th July, 2011 with a
slight modification. The trial
judge awarded plaintiffs general
damages of GHC50,000.00 at the
time taking into consideration
the length of time they had been
prevented from developing their
land together with their foreign
partners. Today is about eight
years on since the High Court
gave its judgment and taking
that into account we award the
plaintiffs general damages of
GHC80,000.00.
STATUTES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
Land Title
Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL
152)
Evidence Act, 1975
NRCD 323
1992 Constitution
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
Anang Sowah v Adams
[2009] SCGLR 111.
Tuakwa v Bosom [2001-2002] SCGLR
61.
In Re Sekyedumase
Stool Affairs; Nyame v Kesse
alias Konto [1998-99] SCGLR 476,
Henderson v Henderson
(1843) 3 Hare 100;
In re Yendi Skin
Affairs; Andani v Abudulai
[1981] GLR 866. CA.
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and
Keeler Ltd (No. 2) [1976] AC
853.
Total Ghana Ltd v Thompson
[2011] 1 SCGLR 458
In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands [2003-2004]
SCGLR 420 and Mondial Venner (Gh)
Ltd v Amuah Gyebu XV [2011] 1
SCGLR 466.
Ankrah v Ofori [1963] 2GLR 403.
Apapam Stool v Ataa (1957) 1 WALR 117
Ankrah v Ofori & Ors [1974] 1
GLR 185 C.A.
Republic v High Court (Fast Track
Division); Ex parte National
Lottery Authority (Ghana Lotto
Operators Association & Others
Interested Parties) [2009] SCGLR
390
BOOKS REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
DELIVERING THE LEADING JUDGMENT
PWAMANG, JSC:-
COUNSEL
KWABENA ANKAMAH
OFEI-BADU FOR THE PLAINTIFS/
RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS.
OSAFO BUABENG FOR THE
1ST
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.
FOSU GYEABOUR FOR THE
3RD
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.
PWAMANG, JSC:-
This is an appeal against the
judgment of the Court of Appeal
dated 4th June, 2015
wherein the Court of Appeal
reversed the judgment of the
High Court dated 4th
July, 2011which went in favour
of the
plaintiffs/respondents/appellants.
In this judgment we shall refer
to the parties by their
descriptions as in the trial
court.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE.
The case was commenced in 2000
and concerns a parcel of land at
Okpoi-Gonno in Accra. In the
course of the litigation 1st
defendant died and was
substituted and 2nd
defendant too died but he was
not substituted. 3rd
defendant was originally not a
party to the suit but he applied
and was joined. The plaintiffs’
claim to the land in dispute was
based on purchase form Bortei
Alabi family of Nungua who
acquired it by customary grant
from the Nungua Stool, had it
documented in 1991 and
registered under the Land Title
Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL
152) with Land Certificate No GA
9043 dated 16th March
1994. Upon the transfer of the
land 2nd plaintiff
was issued a Land Certificate No
GA 13523 dated 22/3/1999. In
their statements of defence the
defendants contended that the
land claimed by plaintiffs fell
within land of Kle Musum
Quarter/Tsie We Family of
Teshie so they counter claimed
for declaration of title. The 1st
and 2nd defendants
were sued because, according to
the plaintiffs, they sold part
of their land to persons who
started to build on it and 3rd
defendant was joined to the suit
for the reason that he alleged
to be the head of Tsie We
family. However, this alleged
capacity of 3rd
defendant was vigorously
challenged by the 1st
and 2nd defendants
who were members of that family.
The substantive issues set down
for trial in the High Court
were;
i)
Whether or not the plaintiffs
are bona fide grantees of the
land by virtue of Land
Certificates Nos. GA 9043 and GA
13523,
ii)
Whether or not the land in
dispute forms part of Kle Musum
Quarter land at Teshie,
iii)
Whether or not 3rd
defendant’s title has priority
over plaintiffs and their
grantor , and
iv)
Whether or not the plaintiffs’
registration is fraudulent.
A director of 2nd plaintiff gave
evidence on behalf of the
plaintiffs, tendered their land
certificates and called two
witnesses who testified in
support of their case. The
substitute for 1st defendant
testified and relied on a number
of documents and judgments
tendered in evidence but did not
call any witness. 3rd defendant
gave a power of attorney to one
Samuel Nii Adjei Duah to testify
on his behalf but he too did not
call any witness.
In his judgment, the High Court
Judge held that 3rd
defendant had no capacity to
represent Tsie We family and
dismissed his case but 3rd
defendant did not appeal. The
appeal which went before the
Court of Appeal was filed by 1st
defendant against the judgment
of the High Court granting
plaintiffs their reliefs. That
notwithstanding, the 3rd
defendant has filed a statement
of case in this second and final
appeal. Clearly, he cannot be
heard as the appeal is against
the decision of the Court of
Appeal to which he was not a
party. See Anang Sowah v
Adams [2009] SCGLR 111. We
notice that the plaintiffs
misled the 3rd
defendant by stating in their
Notice of Appeal that he stood
to be affected by the appeal and
included his name for service
but the Court of Appeal did not
make any order either in favour
of or against the 3rd defendant
which may be varied in this
appeal. Furthermore, since he
did not challenge the High Court
decision that he has no capacity
in the case it means he was not
a proper party to the case to
begin with and is not entitled
to be heard. In the
circumstances we shall disregard
his statement of case.
THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT
After the High Court dismissed
the case of the 3rd
defendant the trial judge
considered the evidence led by
defendant’s on the one hand and
the plaintiffs and their
witnesses on the other hand and
at page 351 of the record he
observed as follows;
“The substitute’s evidence was
empty and shorn of all the vital
corroborative corollary that
ought to ground any relief in
terms of ownership of family
land. Please see Ollennu’s
Principles of Customary Land
Law2nd Edition page 141-142.
Mr John Aidoo Lawyer for the
plaintiff made the following
comment in his written
submissions as regard the
evidence of the substitute. He
said;
‘Not only did he fail to indicate
the precise extent of his land
by way of dimensions or other
people he shares boundary with.
Even worse was his inability to
particularly show any connection
between the said exhibits
tendered by him and the disputed
land’.
The substitute, to put it mildly,
was just mechanical in his
evidence.”
Then at page 352 the trial judge
concluded as follows’
“The 1st defendant
failed to produce any evidence
that would be considered
sufficient (sic) so that a
reasonable mind could conclude
that the existence of the fact
was more probable than its
non-existence. See Evidence Act,
1975 (sic) NRCD 323 at Section
11 thereof.
The standard of proof required of
a party in ownership of land
suits is very well settled.
Specifically under Section 11(1)
and (4) and 12(1) & (2) of the
Evidence Act. The burden of
persuasion requires proof by
preponderance of the
probabilities. So that a party
like the plaintiff in this case
who is asserting title to land
must do so to the degree of
certainty of belief in the mind
of the court (sic) of facts by
which this court must be
convinced of the existence of
those facts as being more
probable than otherwise.
I am convinced that the
plaintiffs by their testimony
have proved their case by the
preponderance of the
probabilities and are entitled
to their reliefs. The plaintiffs
have earned this view of the
court quite aside from the fact
that the defendants proved no
match under the circumstances of
the case. The plaintiffs set out
to discharge the burden on them
by the testimony of the 2nd
plaintiff and other credible
witnesses.”
The trial judge thereafter
examined the evidence in detail
and stated that he was impressed
by the testimony of plaintiff
and his witnesses as against the
defendants.
COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT
The main ground upon which the
Court of Appeal reversed the
finding of the trial judge on
the evidence is captured at page
426 of the record in the
following words;
“Had the trial court properly
evaluated the evidence, the
plaintiffs ought to have lost
the case on the sole ground that
by the 1992 High Court judgment
exhibit 9 the land belongs to
the KLE MUSUM QUARTER of Teshie
to which the defendants’ family
belongs”.
The Court of Appeal in their
judgment indicated other grounds
for their decision but those
issues appeared to be premised
on the assumption that Exhibit
‘9’ was conclusive that the land
in dispute in this case belongs
to Kle Musum quarter of Teshie.
They initially observed that,
having regard to the documents
relied upon by the parties, the
trial judge ought to have suo
moto ordered a
superimposition of the maps
tendered in evidence or visited
the land to obtain a clear
picture of the area but then
they held that since the land in
dispute was clear the case could
nevertheless be determined. At
page 423 they said that;
“Fortunately, the fact that the
parties are ad idem that
the land is at Okpoi Gonno makes
a resolution of the fundamental
issue possible. Our duty now is
to shift (sic) through and
determine from the evidence on
record including the several
documents and judgments that
were tendered whether, as
contended by the appellant,
there has ever been a binding
decision on the ownership of
Okpoi Gonno.”
That the parties were ad idem
as to the land in dispute is
further confirmed by the fact
that in the course of the trial
the 1st defendant
amended his counterclaim and
prayed for declaration of title
to the exact land described by
the plaintiffs which is shown on
the map in the Land Certificate
No 9043.
As stated earlier, the Court of
Appeal saw Exhibit ‘9’ as the
binding judgment on ownership of
Okpoi Gonno lands. Exhibit ‘9’
is a judgment of the High Court
presided over by Omari Sasu J
dated 20th February,
1992 in Suit No L993/81 between
Adjei Onanko II, who sued for
land said to be at Okpoi Gonno
on behalf of Kle Musum Quarter
of Teshie, against one Ibrahim
Mensah Komieteh also of Teshie
who claimed that the Teshie
Stool granted the land to his
father. It appears that there
was no appeal after the
judgment. The Court of Appeal
claimed that Omari Sasu J
“held that the equitable and
beneficial interest or title in
the land in dispute described
as being at Okpoi Gonno
(sic) is vested in Kle Musum
quarter”.
APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
In their Notice of Appeal in
this court the plaintiffs stated
only one ground of appeal
namely; the judgment is against
the weight of the evidence
adduced at the trial. Though it
was indicated in the notice of
appeal that further grounds of
appeal would be filed upon
receipt of the record, none have
been filed. Where an appeal is
filed against a judgment on the
ground that it is against the
weight of the evidence, the
appellate court is required to
comb through the whole record of
appeal and determine for itself
if, having regard to the
relevant law in the case and the
evidence, the court from which
the appeal has been brought was
justified in its findings and
conclusions. See Tuakwa v
Bosom [2001-2002] SCGLR 61.
Plaintiffs at paragraph 18.0 of
their statement of case argued
that; “Though he (respondent)
relied on various judgments, he
did not show that the judgments
he had covered the land of the
plaintiffs.” This submission
goes to the heart of the
judgment of the Court of Appeal
since, according to them,
Exhibit ‘9’ covered the land in
dispute. However, we have
discovered that a close reading
of Exhibit ‘9’ casts a serious
doubt on the correctness of that
fundamental statement in the
judgment of the Court of Appeal,
namely; that Omari Sasu J held
that equitable and beneficial
interests in Okpoi-Gonno lands
belongs to Kle Musum quarter of
Teshie. Permit us to quote Omari
Sasu J at length from pages 128
to 129 of volume 2 of the
record;
“It must be observed here that it
is not the whole of defendant’s
land which is in dispute. What
is in dispute is the area
coloured green in exhibit ‘C’.
This area in dispute is roughly
between 1/3 and ½ of the total
land of defendant. This court in
the course of the trial visited
with the parties and their
respective counsel Okpoi-Gonno,
the land in dispute, ANETE’s
village and crossed the Accra-Tema
motorway to ADJIRINGAO.
From what was seen, OKPOI GONN
VILLAGE where defendant lives is
completely outside the area in
dispute.
Even though defendant maintained
that since the village was
founded by his late father his
descendants have continued to
live at the original OKPOI GONN,
defendant’s witness ODOI KWAME
(DW1) said defendant is not
living at the original site of
OKPOI GONN. Be the true
position as it may, what was
observed during the visit is
that the only human habitation
or human activity this court
found within the area in dispute
which is coloured green in Exh C
was the village of ANETE.
This man claims he was granted
his settlement by the plaintiff
quarter. Apart from ANETE’s
settlement which is within the
land in dispute there were no
farms or settlements within the
land in dispute. I accordingly
find as a fact and hold that
defendant is not in possession
and occupation of the land in
dispute.”
Omari Sasu J concluded his
judgment thus; “What is left
is equitable or beneficial
interest or tile. This I declare
is vested in plaintiff’s KLE
MUSUM QUARTER in respect of the
land in dispute, which land is
coloured green in Exh C.”
By “the land in dispute” Omari
Sasu J was obviously referring
to his description of it upon
the visit which excluded Okpoi
Gonno. What is clear to us from
the above quoted passages is
that the land in dispute in the
suit in Exhibit ‘9’ did not
include OKPOI GONNO and the
judgment that was delivered did
not declare Kle Musum quarter to
be owners of Okpoi Gonno lands.
The second point of note is
that, irrespective of the manner
Kle Musum quarter described the
land they claimed in their
statement of claim in that suit,
the map they tendered which was
superimposed on the map of
Ibrahim Mensah Komieteh did not
extend to cover Okpoi Gonno
where Ibrahim Mensah Komieteh
was living at the time of the
case. These facts which were
personally observed by the High
Court judge and stated in his
judgment are binding against
defendants since they relied on
Exhibit ‘9’ in this case. It is
revealing that the defendants
decided to tender Exhibit ‘9’
without the accompanying
composite plan referred to in
the judgment which showed the
extent of land Kle Musum quarter
claimed in that suit. In any
event, since in that case the
claim of Kle Musum did not
extend to Okpoi Gonno, if
defendants had tendered the
composite plan which was the
basis of the judgment in Exhibit
‘9’ the question here would have
been why has their claim now
been extended to Okpoi Gonno
which they did not claim in the
1981 suit? Therefore, the Court
of Appeal, with due regards,
fell in error when they held
that in Exhibit ‘9’ the High
Court held that Okpoi Gonno
lands belong to Kle Musum
quarter. On the contrary,
Exhibit ‘9’ would act as
estoppel against Kle Musum
quarter from laying claim to
Okpoi Gonno lands since in the
earlier suit they did not claim
those lands. Consequently, we
reverse that finding of the
Court of Appeal and take the
view that by Exhibit “9” Okpoi
Gonno lands are not part of Kle
Musum quarter lands.
The Court of Appeal by stating
that Exhibit ‘9’ was a judgment
binding on the parties in the
current case treated it as
res judicata but in law a
party who seeks to rely on
res judicata is required to
plead and prove the elements of
the res judicata. In the
case of In Re Sekyedumase
Stool Affairs; Nyame v Kesse
alias Konto [1998-99]SCGLR 476,
Acquah, JSC (as he then was) at
pages 478 to 479 of the Report
said as follows;
“The plea of res judicata really
encompasses three types of
estoppel: cause of action
estoppel, issue estoppel in the
strict sense and issue estoppel
in the wider sense. In summary,
cause of action estoppel should
properly be confined to cases
where the cause of action and
the parties (or their privies)
are the same in both current and
previous proceedings. In
contrast, issue estoppel arises
where such a defence is not
available because the causes of
action are not the same in both
proceedings. Instead it operates
where issues, whether factual or
legal, have either already been
determined in previous
proceedings between the parties
(issue estoppel in the strict
sense) or where issues should
have been litigated in previous
proceedings but, owing to
“negligence, inadvertence, or
even accident,” they were not
brought before the court (issue
estoppel in the wider sense),
otherwise known as the principle
in Henderson v Henderson (1843)
3 Hare 100; See also In re Yendi
Skin Affairs; Andani v Abudulai
[1981] GLR 866. CA. The
rationale underlying this last
estoppel is to encourage parties
to bring forward their whole
case so as to avoid a succession
of related actions”
So the three conditions for
invoking issue estoppel are
that;
1.
The same issue must have been
decided in the earlier case;
2.
The judicial decision in the
earlier case must have been
final; and
3.
The parties in the current case
must be the same parties in the
earlier case or their privies;
See also the House of Lords case
of Carl Zeiss Stiftung v
Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No. 2)
[1976] AC 853.
In the instant case, res
judicata would not apply
because, first of all, the
subject matter of the previous
judgment did not cover Okpoi
Gonno land which is the issue
the Court of Appeal sought to
determine in this case.
Secondly, the plaintiffs and
their grantors were neither
parties in the earlier case nor
are they privies of Ibrahim
Mensah Kometeh who claimed he
got the land from the Teshie
Stool. This analysis applies in
respect of the other judgments
that the defendants tendered
and relied upon at the trial.
They failed to prove that the
subject matter decided upon and
the parties in any of those
cases were the same as in the
present case.
We have observed that the Court
of Appeal, being under the
impression that Exhibit “9” held
that Okpoi Gonno lands are part
of Kle Musum lands, stated in
their judgment that if the
plaintiffs had conducted a
search before acquiring the land
they sued for it would have come
to their attention that Kle
Musum Quarter registered a
declaration at the Lands
Commission in 1965 claiming
ownership of the land in dispute
in this case. In the first
place, as has been submitted by
the plaintiffs in this appeal,
which we are in agreement with,
there was no evidence before the
court to the effect that the
land in dispute in this case was
within Kle Musum quarter land so
that claim by the Court of
Appeal was, with the greatest
respect, misconceived. It was
the defendants who as their main
defence alleged that plaintiffs’
land was part of Kle Musum
quarter land covered by series
of judgments and the 1965
Declaration but that was denied
by the plaintiffs wherefore it
was set down at the application
for directions as an issue for
determination at the trial.
Under those circumstances, the
burden of proof of that issue
was upon defendants to introduce
sufficient evidence to avoid a
ruling by the court against
them. Sections 11(1), 14 and 17
of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD
323) provide;
11. Burden of
producing evidence defined
(1) For the purposes of this
Act, the burden of producing
evidence means the obligation of
a party to introduce sufficient
evidence to avoid a ruling on
the issue against that party.
“17. Allocation of
burden of producing evidence
Except as otherwise provided by
law,
(a) the burden of producing
evidence of a particular fact is
on the party against whom a
finding on that fact would be
required in the absence of
further proof;
14. Allocation of burden of
persuasion
Except as otherwise provided by
law, unless it is shifted a
party has the burden of
persuasion as to each fact the
existence or non-existence of
which is essential to the claim
or defence that party is
asserting.
The combined effect of sections
11(1), 14 and 17 of NRCD 323 is
that if a party, such as the
defendant in this case, fails to
discharge the burdens of
producing evidence and
persuasion in respect of any
issue of fact which are upon
him, the court is obligated to
find against him on that issue.
In the case of Total Ghana
Ltd v Thompson [2011] 1 SCGLR
458 this court, speaking
through Anin Yeboah, JSC, said
as follows at page 463 of the
report;
“We think that by its conduct of
neither calling the police
alleged to have investigated the
complaint against the plaintiff
nor the person who had allegedly
made statements that had
implicated the plaintiff, the
defendants may be said to have
admitted plaintiff’s claim that
the allegations made against him
were untrue. In the particular
context of this case, in our
thinking, an obligation on the
part of defendant company to
credible evidence to the trial
court that would render the
allegation on which its
suspension of plaintiff was
based, more probable than the
version of a denial by
plaintiff. By the operation of
the relevant sections of the
Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323),
relating to the burden of
producing evidence, in
particular, sections 11(4) and
14 of the Act, the defendant
left the trial court with no
option than coming to the
conclusion that the allegation
made against the plaintiff that
had informed his suspension was
untrue.”
In the above case, though Total
Ghana Ltd was the defendant, it
carried the burden of proof on
the averments they made in their
defence regarding the grounds
for dismissal of the plaintiff.
They tendered only the police
investigation report without
calling the investigator to
testify, which the Supreme Court
held did not amount to
sufficient proof. In similar
vein, the defendants in the
instant case tendered a number
of judgments and the 1965
Declaration by Kle Musum quarter
without proof that the
plaintiffs’ land was covered by
these documents. As that issue
was specifically set down for
trial at the application for
directions, this court, as an
appellate court, is required to
review the evidence on record
and determine the case guided by
the allocation of the respective
burdens as was done in Total
Ghana Ltd v Thompson
(supra). In the light of our
comments on Exhibit “9” and the
other documents tendered by
defendants, we are of the
opinion that defendants failed
to prove that the land in
dispute is part of Kle Musum
quarter lands referred to in the
1965 declaration.
Besides the failure of
defendants to prove that
plaintiffs land is covered by
the 1965 Declaration, we have
noticed that the probative value
of that declaration by itself
alone as proof of title of Kle
Musum quarter to the land
covered by it has been rejected
by the Court of Appeal and the
Supreme Court in some of the
judgments tendered by the
defendants themselves in this
case. The map attached to the
1965 declaration tendered as
Exhibit “7” can be found at page
104 of the record and the
settlement of OTINSHI is therein
indicated to be within the land
declared by Kle Musum quarter as
its land. Exhibit ‘3’ tendered
by the defendants is a judgment
dated 17th November,
2000 delivered by Asare Korang J
in a case filed by Dr Theodore
Adjei Osae and Another in which
they claimed against Kle Musum
quarter for declaration of title
to Otinshie lands. That decision
of the High Court in favour of
the plaintiffs and against Kle
Musum quarter was affirmed by
the Supreme Court which judgment
dated 7th May, 2008
can be found at page 308 of
volume 1 of the record. In that
case Kle Musum quarter relied on
the 1965 declaration among other
grounds to claim ownership of
Otinshie lands but that was
rejected by the court in the
following terms;
“Exhibit B was also tendered in
the suit entitled Nii Adjei
Obadzen II versus Nii Adjei
Onanka II, Court of Appeal 11th
May 1982 (unreported), where the
observation was made that the
said exhibit was a self serving
document unsupported by any
allodial owner and unilaterally
prepared.
I have myself observed already
that the decision to order the
survey in 1961 of Kle Musum
lands beyond the railway line
was unilateral and unsupported
by law or custom. The Statutory
Declaration, Exhibit B, cannot
therefore be regarded as
carrying any weight or influence
as far as Kle Musum quarter
lands are concerned.
Assuming Exhibit B was at any
time published, the publication
had no legal significance
because as Dr Odame Larbi (D1W6)
said, the decision that
Statutory Declarations be given
wide publication was an
administrative and not a legal
decision.”
The finding of the Court of
Appeal referred to by Asare
Korang J and his own finding,
which has been affirmed by the
Supreme Court, is to the effect
that the 1965 Declaration of Kle
Musum quarter was, like all
statutory declarations claiming
ownership of land, a
self-serving document. See also
the cases of In Re Ashalley
Botwe Lands [2003-2004] SCGLR
420 and Mondial Venner (Gh) Ltd
v Amuah Gyebu XV [2011] 1 SCGLR
466. The Court of Appeal in
the instant case were bound by
their previous decision and that
of the Supreme Court on the
status of the Kle Musum
Declaration of 1965 and ought
not to have relied on the
comments of a High Court and
accorded the Kle Musum
Declaration special status.
Haven discounted the several
documents tendered by the
defendants, we are left with the
testimonies of the parties, the
documents of the plaintiffs
which were in respect of the
particular land in dispute in
this case, and the evidence of
the witnesses called by the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’
tendered their grantors’
document of title showing that
as far back as 1991 the Bortei
Alabi family documented a grant
of the land acquired in
accordance with customary
practices from the Nungua Stool.
They had the land surveyed by
the Director of Surveys as part
of their application to register
the land under the Land Title
Registration Law and in 1994
they were issued with Land Title
Certificate. Two witnesses from
the Nungua Stool testified in
support of the grant to the
Bortei Alabi family. From the
evidence on record, it was in
2000 that the defendants entered
the land through persons they
had sold portions to and that
sparked off this litigation. The
defendants had no description of
the actual land in dispute and
had to rely on plaintiff’s
document to describe the land
they counter claimed for. At the
start of the case the plaintiffs
applied and were granted on
order of interim injunction
restraining the defendants and
their grantees from developing
the land pending the final
determination of the suit. The
defendants ignored the order of
interim injunction wherefore the
plaintiffs applied for their
attachment for contempt of
court. The court even went as
far as making an order for the
arrest of defendants’ workmen.
In the 1st
defendant’s statement of case he
sought to rely on the structures
built during this period in the
teeth of the litigation and in
violation of the court’s orders
as acts of possession that
should enure to the advantage of
defendants. Such developments
cannot have priority over
plaintiffs grantors dealing with
the land which on the evidence
on the record was as far back
as 1991, nine years earlier. See
Ankrah v Ofori [1963] 2GLR
403.
We have evaluated the whole of
the evidence of the plaintiffs
as against that of the
defendants and are of the view
that since in the Declaration of
Kle Musum quarter they stated
that they originally purchased
the land from the Nungua Stool
and the plaintiffs trace their
grant from the Nungua Stool, the
failure by defendants to lead
any evidence to prove that the
disputed land is part of the
area originally purchased from
the Nungua Stool undermined
their claim as they acknowledged
the ownership of the Nungus
Stool. See the case of Apapam
Stool v Ataa (1957) 1 WALR 117.
Therefore, considering the
relative strengths of the rival
cases, that of the plaintiffs
who claim a purchase from the
admitted owners looks more
probable and ought to have been
preferred by the Court of
Appeal. The decision to reverse
the trial court was in the
circumstances unreasonable.
The Court of Appeal in their
judgment made an issue of the
discrepancy in the size of the
land as stated in the lease
between the Nugua Stool and
Bortei Alabi family and what is
recorded in the 2nd
plaintiff’s Land Certificate.
The former document had 13.80
acres and the later 11.398
acres. The appellants in their
statement of case argued that
since the acreage in the
certificate is smaller than that
in the lease there ought not to
be any problem. The respondent
did not make any submissions in
this appeal on this aspect of
the case but suffice it to say
that by section 36 of PNDCL 152,
the Registrar of Lands may
require the Director of Surveys
to survey land for the purposes
of the Land Title Registration
Act. We have taken notice of the
fact that the Director of
Surveys signed the map in the
Land Certificate tendered by the
plaintiffs. As for the
attachment of the lease of
Bortei Alabi family to the
certificate of 2nd
plaintiff that has been
explained in the body of the
certificate and the Memorials.
The interest registered for 2nd
plaintiff is the unexpired term
of the lease of Bortei Alabi
family and the interest is
subject to the terms and
covenants of that lease, hence
its attachment. Besides, the
interest of the Bortei Alabi
family was acquired under
customary law and a document
only adds to such customary
interest but cannot derogate
from it. See Ankrah v Ofori &
Ors [1974] 1 GLR 185 C.A.
The appellants have argued
before us that the registration
of their interest in the land
makes their title indefeasible
except it is proved that the
registration was made by mistake
or fraud. That was the import of
the first issue that was set
down for determination in the
trial. This is what the statute
provides;
“Effect of Registration
43. Indefeasibility of
registration
(1) Subject to subsections (2),
(3) and (4) of this section and
to section 48, the rights of a
registered proprietor of land
whether acquired on first
registration or acquired
subsequently for valuable
consideration or by an order of
a Court, are indefeasible and
shall be held by the proprietor
together with the privileges and
appurtenances attaching to the
land free from any other
interests and claims.
(2) The rights of a proprietor
are subject to the interests or
any other encumbrances and
conditions shown in the land
register.
(3) This section does not relieve
a proprietor from a duty or an
obligation to which the
proprietor is otherwise a
trustee.
(4) The registration of a person
as the proprietor of land or an
interest in land does not confer
on that person a right to
minerals not already vested in
that person.”
As was stated with authority by
Atuguba, JSC in the case of
Republic v High Court (Fast
Track Division); Ex parte
National Lottery Authority
(Ghana Lotto Operators
Association & Others Interested
Parties) [2009] SCGLR 390 at
page 397;
“ It is communis opinion among
lawyers that the courts are
servants of the legislature.
Consequently, any act of a court
that is contrary to a statute
such as Act 722, s 58 (1)-(3)
is, unless otherwise expressly
or impliedly provided, a
nullity…..Consequently, the
courts have been bound to hold
that the courts’ own law, the
common law as defined in article
11(2) of the 1992 Constitution,
must give way to statute.”
So, to the extent that
defendants did not prove any of
the exceptions above and mistake
or fraud, the attacks on the
plaintiff’s certificate ought to
have failed. The 1st
defendant in his statement of
case argued at paragraphs 30 to
35 thereof on an allegation of
fraud against the grantors of
plaintiff in relation to the
signature of the Gborbu Wulomo,
one of the head grantors, on
their lease which is inserted in
plaintiff’s Land Certificate.
But that issue about the alleged
forgery of the signature of the
Gborbu Wulomo was investigated
by the police and plaintiffs
grantors were prosecuted before
the Greater Accra Regional
Tribunal sitting at Tema which,
by its judgment dated 13th
February, 2002 tendered as
Exhibit ‘J’ in the trial court,
acquitted them of the charges.
In our opinion, that rested that
charge. Besides, that case was
made in 2000 whereas the
plaintiff’s certificate is dated
22nd April, 1999 and
there is no evidence that he
became aware of even the
allegation before the
acquisition.
In the conclusion of his
statement of case 1st
defendant, submitted that the
overwhelming evidence on record
supported the judgment of the
Court of Appeal. We disagree
with that submission and have
already in this opinion
explained the reasons for our
position that the judgment of
the Court of Appeal is not
supported by the evidence on
record. In the result, we find
merit in the appeal and
accordingly allow same. We set
aside the judgment of the Court
of Appeal dated 4th
June, 2015 and restore the
judgment of the High Court dated
4th July, 2011 with a
slight modification. The trial
judge awarded plaintiffs general
damages of GHC50,000.00 at the
time taking into consideration
the length of time they had been
prevented from developing their
land together with their foreign
partners. Today is about eight
years on since the High Court
gave its judgment and taking
that into account we award the
plaintiffs general damages of
GHC80,000.00.
G. PWAMANG
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC:-
I agree with the
conclusion and reasoning of my
brother Pwamang, JSC.
P. BAFFOE-BONNIE
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
GBADEGBE, JSC:-
I agree with the
conclusion and reasoning of my
brother Pwamang, JSC.
N. S. GBADEGBE
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
DORDZIE (MRS.), JSC:-
I agree with the
conclusion and reasoning of my
brother Pwamang, JSC.
A.
M. A. DORDZIE (MRS.)
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
KOTEY, JSC:-
I agree with the
conclusion and reasoning of my
brother Pwamang, JSC.
PROF. N. A.
KOTEY
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
COUNSEL
KWABENA ANKAMAH
OFEI-BADU FOR THE PLAINTIFS/
RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS.
OSAFO BUABENG FOR THE
1ST
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.
FOSU GYEABOUR FOR THE
3RD
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.
|