ALHAJI SADIQ ABUBAKAR VS BERCHIE ACHEAMFOUR & ORS
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWAME GYAMFI OSEI
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Administrative Law
- Constitutional Law
- Evidence Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This High Court (Land Division) case concerned competing claims over land at Abofu North, Accra, originally compulsorily acquired under the Public Lands Ordinance 1876. The Plaintiff, describing himself as a lessee of the Ghana Railway Company, asserted ownership based on a grant from the Ghana Railway Development Authority (GRDA) and alleged trespass by the 1st Defendant. The Lands Commission (2nd Defendant) maintained the land is state land vested in the President and, under Articles 257–258 and Act 767, it alone manages such lands; the Commission had granted the land to the 3rd Defendant, Liberty Capital Co. Ltd, which had registered title (GA 51 332). Applying Evidence Act burdens, constitutional and statutory provisions, and a Supreme Court precedent (Dakpem Zobugu Naa Henry A. Kaleem), the court found no certificate of allocation or vesting of the land in GRDA or its predecessors and noted the land was not needed for quarry use. It held the Lands Commission had authority to lease the land, dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, entered judgment for the 3rd Defendant, declared its leasehold title, granted a perpetual injunction, and awarded costs of GH a260,000.
INTRODUCTION
Article 258 of the 1992 Constitution mandates the Lands Commission to manage all State/Public Lands vested in the President on behalf of, and in trust for, the people of Ghana.
When Public Lands are assigned to Public Institutions by the State and that Public Institution has no need for the land, or immediate use of the land, who manages that land? Is it the Lands Commission or that Public Entity? In this case the Plaintiff has been granted land compulsorily acquired by the State under the Public Lands Ordinance 1876[CAP 134] by the Plaintiff’s grantor i. e. the Ghana Railway Development Authority(hereinafter would be referred to us GRDA). The 2nd Defendant excising its mandate under the Constitution and the Lands Commission Act 2008 (Act 767) has also granted the same land to the 3rd Defendant.
This judgment therefore seeks to answer the question posed supra but before that I would relate the facts and the evidence adduced before this court by the parties.
THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF The Plaintiff claiming to be a lessee of the Ghana Railway Company has brought the present action against the Defendants claiming the following reliefs“a. A declaration that the Plaintiff is the bonafide owner of the land mentioned and described in paragraph 2 of the statement of claim b. An order directed at the 1st Defendant to demolish any structure on the said land c. An order directed at the 2nd Defendant to cancel any certificate issued to the 1st Defendant transferring title in the disputed land to him d. A perpetual injunction to restrain the 1st Defendant whether by himself, his servants, agents, workmen, assigns or whomsoever from interfering with the Plaintiff’s ownership, occupation and possession of the land e. Cost and any further order(s) as this Honourable court may deem fit. ”According to the Plaintiff his grantor’s predecessor i. e. The Ghana Railway Corporation acquired the disputed land for a quarry and the said acquisition was gazetted between 14th March and 4th April 1908 and same is now vested in the Ghana Railway Development Authority per the Railway Act 2008 (Act 779). After the said grant he took possession by placing a container and blocks on the land.
According to the Plaintiff the 1st Defendant trespassed unto the land and fenced a portion of the land.
He realized later that it was the 2nd Defendant who granted the disputed land to the 1st and 3rd Defendants.
According to Plaintiff the 2nd Defendant has no right to lease the la