EDWARD OFFEI-BEKOE VS ALHAJI ASUMA DEBA & ANOR
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU (J.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a land dispute before the Ghana High Court, His Lordship Alexander Osei Tutu considered the 1st Defendants application to dismiss the suit as frivolous and an abuse of process. The 1st Defendant claimed a prior judgment concerned the same land, while the Plaintiff insisted his parcel was distinct. A different bench had ordered a superimposition and composite plan, and a surveyor was crossexamined, but the report failed to resolve the identity and boundary issues. The 1st Defendant urged reliance on Section 45 of the Lands Act, 2020 (Act 1036) to set aside or modify conveyancing arrangements. The court reasoned that such relief cannot be granted when the Lands Commission is not a party, cited AGBOSU v Kotey, and, guided by Order 1 Rule 1(2) and Order 4 Rule 5(2)(b) of C.I. 47, declined the dismissal application, ordered joinder of the Lands Commission as 3rd Defendant, and directed amendment of the writ.
I have been tasked by the parties to give a Ruling pursuant to the filing of the Written Submissions by both Counsel.
I must confess that I find the duty entrusted to me a difficult one, basically because of my limited information of the antecedents of the case, but I will do my best in the circumstances with the little knowledge I have gathered from the submissions and record.
Reading the submissions filed, it seems to me that the 1st Defendant moved the Court to dismiss the instant action for being frivolous and an abuse of the Court process.
While the 1st Defendant/Applicant claims that he had a Judgment in a previous suit which land is not different from the subject matter land, the Plaintiff asserts that the land in the said judgment is separate and distinct from his land.
This made the Court, differently constituted, to order for a superimposition and the drawing up of a Composite Plan, which was done.
Although the Surveyor appeared in Court to be cross-examined, his Report seemed not to adequately resolve the entire issues in the matter.
At the last page of the Written Submissions by Counsel for the 1st Defendant, he noted “The Lands Commission cannot derogate from its grant and are estopped from denying so.
Litigation must come to an end and we urge the Court to use its powers under the Lands Act, 2020 (Act 1036) Section 45 – to set aside or modify any agreement to convey land on grounds of illegality among other grounds”. If I should dismiss this suit as urged on me by the Applicant at this stage, how would the Court be able to set aside or modify an agreement pertaining to the conveyance in the suit when the Lands Commission is not a party? See AGBOSU VRS KOTEY AND ORS [2003–2005] 1 GLR 685 at holding 10. I also observed that the Defendants relied on some correspondences with the Lands Commission prior to the institution of this suit and there are matters not clearly within the scope of the Report of the Composite Plan drawn up.
I do not think the Composite Plan, at this stage is able to resolve all the issues entailed in this suit and the need to probe further by taking evidence becomes imperative.
In interpreting the Rules of this Court, the Court is guided by the objective of the Court Rules in Order 1 Rule 1 (2) of C. I. 47 which enjoins it among others, to ensure that all disputes and issues are effectively and finally determined.
Accordingly, this Court will decline the Application made to have the suit dismissed.
Lands Commiss