BOBBY BEN K. QUARTEY VS ALFRED QUARCOO & ANOR
April 29, 2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP BARBARA TETTEH-CHARWAY (J)
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
April 29, 2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice BARBARA TETTEH-CHARWAY of the High Court adjudicated a land title dispute brought by Bobby Ben Quartey against two defendants, one of whom had died and the other failed to defend. Quartey claimed he acquired the disputed land in 1979 from his grandmother, Madam Elizabeth Marnoo Bruce, and tendered an indenture registered at the Land Registry (No. 1144/1983) as documentary proof. After default judgment against the second defendant, the court required proof because the relief sought was declaratory. Relying on Ghanaian precedents and the Evidence Act, the court assessed whether the plaintiff had, on a preponderance of probabilities, proved title and the identity and limits of the land. The court emphasized that registration under section 25 of the Land Registry Act constitutes notice to the world and that unchallenged, material facts need no further proof if not cross‑examined. Finding the plaintiff’s evidence sufficient, the court declared Quartey the lawful owner, granted a perpetual injunction against the second defendant, and awarded damages and costs.
Plaintiff, Bobby Ben Quartey, brought the present action to recover land that he claimed defendants had encroached upon. In his statement of claim, he asserted that he acquired the land in dispute from one Madam Marnoo Bruce in 1979, put a caretaker on the land, and relocated from Accra to Takoradi. On a visit to Accra, he discovered that the caretaker had died, defendants had encroached on the land, and were in the process of constructing a building on it. Plaintiff therefore prayed for a declaration of title to the land in dispute, immediate ejection of defendants from the land, and an order of perpetual injunction against defendants.
Subsequently, plaintiff brought an application for judgment in default of appearance against the 2nd defendant only. In the affidavit in support of the application for default judgment, he claimed that the 2nd defendant had failed to file a defense, although a search conducted at the court’s registry, which he attached as exhibit B, confirmed that the 2nd defendant had been served with the writ of summons and statement of claim. The 1st defendant, on the other hand, had passed away.
Plaintiff was granted judgment in default of defense against the 2nd defendant and given a date to prove his title to the land in dispute. Upon proof of service of a hearing notice on the 2nd defendant, plaintiff proceeded to lead evidence in proof of his claim. Since the plaintiff was seeking a declaratory relief, it was essential that he adduce evidence and that the court inquire whether the evidence led was a sufficient basis upon which to grant the declaration sought.
In proof of his title to the land in dispute, plaintiff tendered an indenture dated 14th December 1979, exhibit A, as evidence of a gift made of the land in dispute made to him by his grandmother Madam Elizabeth Marnoo Bruce. The said indenture had been registered at the Land Registry and numbered 1144/1983. He further testified that he had warned the defendants off his land on several occasions but had had to take the present legal action due to their obstinacy.
In the case of Adwubeng v Dumfeh 1996 SCGLR 660, 670, it was held that the standard of proof in cases for declaration of title to land, as with all other civil cases, was proof by preponderance of probabilities as provided for in sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 Act 323. Furthermore, in the case of Nyikplorkpo v Agbodotor (1987-88) 1GLR 165, 171, Abban J. A (as he then was) stated that to succeed in