ADJETEY ADJEI v. SEIDU ABUBAKAR & LAND COMMISSION

AYEBI J.A.

I agree that this appeal should be allowed with this small comment on the case of Memuna Moudy vrs Antwi [2003/04] SCGLR 967 relied upon by the plaintiff/respondent.

It is made clear in this case that upon publication of notice of acquisition in the gazette, land compulsorily acquired under Cap.134 (1951 Rev.) automatically vests in the government. Further by the provisions of section 11 of Cap. 134, all existing interests in the land whatever are deemed barred forever. But after the acquisition, a previous owner or persons claiming through the said previous owner who continue to remain in possession (presumably to the knowledge of the state) can maintain or defend an action based on adverse possession or by invoking section 30(1) of the Limitation Act, 1972 (NRCD 54). This action or defence is made possible because of the view held that the statute does not bar expressly acquisition of any interest in the land in the future.

The contention on behalf of plaintiff/respondent is that he has acquired prescriptive title to the land by remaining in possession which possession is adverse to the interest of the state for all these years. In support of this contention, the statement of case related the facts in evidence. But then the truth of the matter is that, the evidence on record has been twisted or skewed as foundation for that contention or submission.

Indeed the evidence from plaintiff’s own mouth is that the land is bushy at the time the 1st defendant/appellant entered it. There was no presence of the plaintiff or his agent on the land over the long period. In fact the evidence of 1st defendant’s witness is that only encroachers were winning sand on the land for which reason they had to seek police assistance to drive them off the land.

The further evidence of plaintiff and his witness PW1 (Afutu) show that adverse possession is not the basis of their claim at all. Rather their claim is based on possession of a title document, Exhibit A and the release of the land to their grantor when the request was made to the Land Commission, 2nd defendant. And they relied on Exhibits B and C as documentary evidence of the said release. That is the crux of plaintiff’s case. However as demonstrated in the lead judgment, Exhibits B and C do not support that contention at all.

It also needs to be emphasized that registration under the Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122) does not confer a state guaranteed title on the holder. This is because under Act 122