Bizzaco Limited v. Accra Metropolitan Assembly
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Owusu, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- Lovelace-Johnson, J.A.
- Kwofie, J.A.
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal from the High Court, Commercial Division, Accra, concerns a dispute over government land at Abelenkpe used for a washing bay. The Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) first granted the plaintiff a temporary permit with express conditions barring permanent structures and disavowing ownership, and later executed a five-year assignment. The plaintiff invested approximately GH¢486,190.19, but National Security demolished the structures in May 2014 on the basis that the land belonged to Government and was reserved for public use. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held, by reference to Articles 257 and 258 of the 1992 Constitution and the Local Government Act, that only the Lands Commission may manage and alienate public lands; AMA had no authority to assign the land. Although AMA’s assignment was wrongful, its misrepresentation was innocent and it sought Lands Commission consent. Because Government carried out the demolition, AMA was not liable. The appeal was dismissed.
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.: On 5th of April, 2016, the High Court, Commercial Division, Accra, dismissed the action of the plaintiff against the defendant.
In his judgment, the trial court held among others as follows: “clearly then, alienation of an immovable property is not within the scope of The Sale of Goods Act.
With the plaintiff having failed to prove that defendant misled it into coming unto the land, defendant cannot accordingly be held liable for the destruction to the property or investment made by the plaintiff and the latter has no cause of action against A.M.A. In the premises, it would be futile for the court to proceed to vet the bill of quantity submitted by PW1.
The action of plaintiff against A.M.A. is accordingly dismissed in its entirety.
I will award cost of Gh¢6,000.00 against plaintiff.” Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the plaintiff mounted an appeal on the following grounds:
1. The judgment is not supported by the weight of evidence adduced at the trial.
2. The trial Judge was influenced by facts not borne by the record and thus erred by misdirecting himself on the facts.
3. Despite material evidence on record, the trial Judge erred by ignoring the defendant’s erroneous claim to ownership of the subject matter land which plaintiff relied on to its detriment.
4. The trial Judge erred when he held that plaintiff had knowledge that the subject matter land belongs to Government and not the defendant which is an Agency of Government.
5. The trial Judge erred in not finding the defendant liable having found that they did not have the legal and equitable right to assign the land to plaintiff.
6. The trial Judge erred in dissociating the defendant an Agency of Government from Government and thereby exonerating them from liability.
The relief sought from the Court of Appeal is to set aside the judgment and to enter judgment for the plaintiff/appellant.
Before dealing with the arguments advanced in support of this appeal, I will give a brief background of the case.
By its amended writ of summons, the plaintiff claims against the defendant the following:
i. An amount of Gh¢486,190.19 being the total amount expended by the plaintiff on its business operations on the aforesaid land from the date when the land was given it to the date of the final demolition.
ii.
Interest on same at the prevailing bank rate from the date of the issuance of this suit to the date of final payment of same.
iii.
Costs incurred by