BLUE SKY PRODUCTS GH. LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND LANDS COMMISSION
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARFUL SAU (J.A) PRESIDING, LOVELACE-JOHNSON (J.A), HENRY A. KWOFIE (J.A)
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Corporate Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the Applicant/Appellant sought various declarations regarding its land rights as a Ghanaian company. The High Court refused to grant these declarations and made orders limiting the Applicant's powers over the land. On appeal, the court determined that the Applicant was not a Ghanaian company due to its sole ownership by a foreign entity, thereby not entitled to freehold interests in land. The court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the statutory definition of a Ghanaian company and supporting the decision to pierce the corporate veil to reveal the true nature of the Applicant. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
JUDGMENT
AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON JA:
On 29th June 2012, the Applicant/Appellant for what they described as ‘the recalcitrance of the officers of the Lands Commission among others’ filed an application for the following reliefs at the High Court.
A declaration that the Applicant is a person at law and entitled to and has the right to own landed property or interests in landed property as a Ghanaian legal person.
A declaration that the Applicant is a person at law and entitled to and has the right to own landed property or interests in the landed property as a PERSON as enshrined in ARTICLE 18 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
A declaration that pursuant to the said right the Applicant has the right or is entitled to purchase, obtain, enjoy, maintain, transfer, mortgage, assign, convey, etc interests in its land or interest in lands.
A declaration that the Applicant is by virtue of its registration and incorporation entitled to mortgage, convey, transfer, assign, lease, sublease, etc or all of its interests held by it in any landed property.
An order directed at all or relevant administrative bodies or public officials or Lands Commission to register or conclude the registration of all or any of the Applicant’s interests either for its benefits or for the benefit of its transferees, assignees, leases, etc
Any other orders as this court may deem fit
The said Lands Commission was joined as a second Respondent upon application. The High Court after hearing arguments from both sides refused to grant the said application and made further orders relating to the interest the Applicant/Appellant could have in any lands held by them and limited the powers to deal with the said land among others.
It is the dissatisfaction of the Applicant/Appellant with these orders that has culminated in the present appeal. Eight grounds of appeal were filed by the Appellant with the intimation that further grounds would later be filed upon receipt of the Record of Proceedings. No such further grounds were filed. These are;
That the whole judgment/ ruling is contrary to law.
That the judgment/ ruling is against the weight of evidence.
That the conclusion made by the judge that the appellant company does not have Ghanaian nationality is contrary to the evidence.
That the learned judge’s piercing of the corporate veil to determine the nationality of the appellant is unwarranted and wrong in law.
That the learned judge erred in law when he declared that th