2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal from the High Court, Tamale regarding the land dispute over the 208.84 acres of Kaladan lands is considered. The court upheld the trial judge's findings that the land was vested in the crown for public services and the right to reversionary interest in its original owners was provided for under Section 5 (8) of Cap 111 and Article 257 of the 1992 Constitution. The judgment in favor of the Respondent was upheld with minor adjustments.
JUDGEMENT
TORKORNOO (MRS), J.A.
This is an appeal from the High Court, Tamale. The original plaintiff described himself as a sub-chief of the Gumbiliya gate of the Dakpema Skin. He sued the Lands Commission as 1st defendant, and the Attorney General as 2nd defendant. The Lands Commission is the appellant in this appeal.
It was the case of the plaintiff that the Dakpema Skin had 3 gates, and accession to the skin was rotational among the various gates, hence his capacity to sue regarding the proper utilization, protection and preservation of Dakpema Skin lands. After his death during the course of proceedings in the high court, he was substituted with the respondent to this appeal.
The dispute in court is over 208.84 acres of land (Kaladan lands) out of the generality of Dakpema Skin lands. It was the case of the Plaintiff Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) that sometime in 1905, part of Dakpema Skin land which included the Kaladan lands were ‘released to and or acquired by’ the British colonial government for varied purposes. He pleaded that no compensation was paid for the acquisition. He averred further that the Kaladan lands in particular were occupied by the Gold Coast military. After independence, these lands held by the crown became vested in the President of the Republic of Ghana.
He went on to plead that in or about 1997, a portion of these 208.84 acres were released to the Dakpema Skin through a committee with representatives of the 3 gates. The released lands were distributed among the gates. Thereafter, more efforts were made for the release of more of the Kaladan land and this was done. However, after the second release of Dakpema lands, the 1st defendant/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Appellant) took control of the released lands and started to dispose of, grant and sell same to private individuals without recourse to the Dakpem Skin – the pre-acquisition owners of the lands. The contention of the Appellant in defence of these dispositions was that the Kaladan lands constituted state lands. The Respondent described the dispositions as illegal and the contentions of the Appellant as contrary to law. In the endorsement on his amended writ, the Plaintiff/Respondent claimed for:
i. A declaration that the conduct of the 1st defendant is ultra vires and therefore null and void
ii. A declaration that the conduct of the 3rd defendant in the circumstances of this lawsuit is unconscionable, inequitable, unfair and unjust.