ANKRAH v. OFORI

JUDGMENT OF AKAINYAH J.

In this action the plaintiff sues under the Land Development (Protection of Purchasers) Act, 19601 for the relief set out in his writ.

Section 2 (1) of the said Act reads as follows:

“Where—

(a) a person (in this section referred to as the purchaser) took a conveyance of land in a prescribed area at some time after 31st December, 1944 and before the date on which the area became a prescribed area, and

(b) the purchaser or a person claiming through him, in good faith erected a building on the land, and

(c) a possession order was made in relation to the land in proceedings finally disposed of before the date on which the area became a prescribed area, and was so made by reason that the conveyance taken by the purchaser did not operate to confer on him the title to the land,

the person against whom the possession order was made may, at any time within twelve months after the date on which the area became a prescribed area, apply to the High Court for an order under this section."

By a legislative instrument2 entitled the Land Development (Protection of Purchasers) (Accra Prescribed Area) Instrument, 1961, made the 19th May, 1961, and published in the Ghana Gazette on the 2nd June, 1961, the Accra area described in the schedule thereto was declared a prescribed area for the purposes of the Act and the time for bringing an action by interested persons began to run from the 19th May, 1961.

By this application, the plaintiff has admitted that he is out of time and he is praying for an order of this court for extension of time within which to institute proceedings under the Act on the grounds of fraud. In effect, the applicant is asking for a declaration that the alleged fraud [p.103]of the defendant prevented time running against him and that he still can sue. In support of the application, the plaintiff relied on an affidavit sworn to by him on the 14th January 1963, and a copy of a letter dated the 20th June 1961, written by him to David Sarbah Ofori, the defendant herein, and a copy of the defendant's reply dated the 25th July, 1961, both of which he annexed to the said affidavit and marked A and B respectively. In his affidavit, the applicant alleged that as a result of representations made orally to him, he paid the sum of £G20 in part payment of the sum to which the defendant would be entitled if he sued under the Act. He was made to believe that the defendant would restore his house to him without the necessity of going t