Introduction This action is in respect of a parcel of land situate at Oshiyie and the action brings to the fore the issues surrounding the ownership of land at Oshiyie.
Although the parties in attempting to prove their case had to lead evidence with respect to their respective grantors’ title over the land in dispute and invariably over who has the right to alienate lands at Oshiyie, it is my considered opinion that the issue of who has the right to alienate land at Oshiyie should be properly dealt with in an action duly contested between the respective claimants to ownership of land at Oshiyie.
I will limit this judgment to the specific parcel of land before me and I must state at the outset that any determination made before me in this judgment does not extend to all the lands at Oshiyie but to the specific parcel of land which is the subject matter of this suit.
Plaintiffs’ case The 1st plaintiff refers to himself as a retired lecturer at Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA) and the 2nd plaintiff also refers to himself as a dental surgeon resident in Germany.
It is the plaintiffs’ case that sometime in 1994, they together with one Dr. S. K. Dapaah (deceased) bought the disputed land from the Bosomprah family of Oshiyie represented by Armah Kwaku, Abeka Otoo and Ayeletse Nii Obusumfour acting together with the consent and concurrence of the principal members of the family.
They paid for the land in cash and in kind – the purchase of an outboard motor.
Plaintiffs aver that after the purchase, they were put in possession and they put caretakers on the land.
They then commenced registration of their interest at the Land Registration Division of the Lands Commission where they were issued with a ‘yellow card’. It is their case that during the registration, a surveyor from the Survey and Mapping Division of the Lands Commission was tasked to place corner pillars on the land for the purposes of plotting, which assignment he substantially completed.
The plaintiffs aver that sometime in the 2000s, one of their caretakers informed them that there was a trespasser on the land and the 1st plaintiff petitioned the police for redress.
The plaintiffs further aver that the registration of their land later stalled as the Lands Commission informed them that they have received multiple requests for registration of the same land.
It is the plaintiffs’ case that the said request reveals that they were the first to apply for registration
