AMARTEI v. STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

Haasto is a village lying along the Accra-Kwabenya Atomic Energy motor road. The first defendant corporation is a statutory body established under the laws of Ghana. By an executive instrument entitled “Site for the State Insurance Corporation Instrument, 1979 (E.I. 58)” the Government of Ghana acting through the Lands Commission and in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125) compulsorily acquired a large tract of land at Greenhill, Legon for the first defendant. The purpose was to enable the first defendant develop the land into a residential estate. There is a controversy as to whom this development was meant to benefit. I would leave this issue for a moment until the need arises for its determination. Suffice it to say however that the purpose was as already stated to turn the area into a residential estate.

The people of Haasto are not particularly enamoured with these noble objectives. The plaintiff who describes himself as the head of the Nii Armah Sogblah family of Osu on behalf of the said family and the people of Haasto has instituted this action claiming:

(1) A declaration that the said executive instrument and the purported compulsory acquisition are ultra vires, null and void.

(2) ¢30 million damages for trespass to all that area of land with an approximate acreage of 52.6 which forms part of the total acreage and also for unlawfully and wrongfully preventing or delaying developments within the said area.

(3) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants [p.91] through its directors, officers or other servants from interfering with the 52.6 acres described above.”

Briefly put (I will deal with these matters in detail when I come to deal with the issues raised by the pleadings) the plaintiff based his claim on the following:

(1) That the first defendant is not entitled by law to benefit under the compulsory acquisition laws, i.e. either the State Property and Contracts Act, 1960 (C.A.6) or its successor, the State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125), the Act under which the acquisition was made.

(2) The first defendant instead of applying the land for the purpose for which it was intended was resorting to ‘speculative dealing by letting or selling portions to interested organisations and individuals for development for their own purpose.’

(3) The first defendant has by threats prevented and/or delayed developments being carried out by the plaintiff’s family and by