2010
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Ansah, JSC, delivering the Supreme Court’s judgment, reviewed a land dispute involving Maamobi property on Osu Stool lands among three claimants. The first claimant traced his title through his uncle, Charles Gilbert Noi, based on a caretaker grant by Nii Kpakpo Adokwei Saka, allegedly confirmed by Osu Mantse Nii Dowuona V. The second claimant derived title via a conveyance from the Osu Mantse to his father, Emmanuel Yao Attigah, and sought land not taken for the Nima Highway. The third claimant had been in peaceful possession since 1974 and later received a grant from Nii Ashong Omaboe after earlier dealings with Nii Nortei Owuo III. Affirming Akwei v Awuletey and Odoi v Hammond, the Court held that a caretaker acting alone cannot grant Osu Stool land and that the purported ratification failed under Malm v Lutterodt. Registration could not validate a void grant, possession was not legally inviolable, and the Land Title Registrar could cancel a certificate suo motu. All grounds were dismissed and the Court of Appeal’s decision affirmed.
ANSAH, JSC:-
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, coram, E.K. Piesare (presiding), S.K. Marful Sau and Mariama Owusu JJA, dated 13th March 2008, in which the court dismissed the appeal against the judgment by the High Court which had set aside the judgment of the trial Land Title Tribunal.
It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been brought to us on the following grounds of appeal, namely that:
“i) The Court of Appeal misdirected itself and caused a substantial miscarriage of justice when it held that the grant to the appellant was null and void because the caretaker of Osu stool lands had no authority to grant Osu stool land when the case of the Appellant was that the caretaker in his position as an agent of the stool granted the land to Appellant’s grantor which grant was ratified/endorsed concurrently with the execution of the document by his principal the then Osu Mantse Nii Dowuona V.
ii) The Court of Appeal misdirected itself in giving effect to the unregistered title of the Respondents when there was clear evidence on record that the Appellant had a prior registered document of title.
iii) The Court of Appeal failed to take recognizance of the legal effect of the fact that at the time of the purported grant by the Osu Stool to the Respondent the Appellant, a subject of the stool had been in effective occupation of the land and therefore there could be no alienation of the land without his consent and concurrence.
iv) The Court of Appeal misdirected itself in giving effect to the cancellation by the Land Title Registrar of the land title certificate duly obtained by the Appellant prior to the reference of the dispute to the Land Title Adjudicating Tribunal, when the enabling statute did not give the Land Title Registrar power to do so suo motu.
v) Further grounds of appeal would be filed upon the receipt of the Record of proceedings.”
None has so far been filed, despite this intimation.
Before delving into the merits of the appeal I have decided to give a resume of the facts that culminated in the appeal. They were that following conflicting claims by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants to the area in dispute, the Chief Registrar of Lands referred the case to the Land Title Adjudicating Committee Tribunal, Accra, for adjudication under Sections 22 and 23 6 (b) of the Land Title Registry Law, PNDCL 152. On the evidence the land in dispute was at Maamobi which was indisputably on Osu Stool lands. There is no