2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Ghana Court of Appeal decision, authored by Justice Avril Lovelace‑Johnson JA, concerns a dispute over Asere Stool land between the Plaintiff (E.A. Glover) and Defendants associated with Benjamin Komla Debrah. The Plaintiff claimed ownership via a 1972 conveyance from the Asere Stool and Land Title Certificate No. GA 3406, while the Defendants traced title to Debrah’s 1975 purchase from E.C. Otoo, which itself rested on a 1948 deed of gift from T.R. Quartey. The appellate court exercised its rehearing power, scrutinized the registry history and the evidentiary record, and held that administrative deletions of Otoo’s and Debrah’s registered documents were unlawful and that the Plaintiff failed to disclose Defendants’ occupation when seeking registration, rendering his certificate tainted by fraud. Although the trial judge failed to discuss PNDCL 152, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, cancelled the Plaintiff’s certificate, restored the 1948 and 1975 registrations, and awarded costs to the Respondents.
AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON JA:
The present appeal has been launched by the Plaintiff/Appellant against the judgment of the circuit court delivered on 30th January 2013 on the following grounds
1. The plaintiff’s claim having been founded on his Land Title Certificate (No. GA 3406) the learned trial judge failed to appreciate the force and effect of sections 18 (1) and 43 (1) of the Land Title Registration Law 1986, PNDCL 152 and hence misdirected himself on the applicable law.
2. Considering the admission by the Defendants that the land in dispute was originally owned by the Asere stool the learned trial judge erred in his finding that the co- defendant’s grantor E.C. Otoo was the owner at the time of his grant to Benjamin Komla Debrah in view of the evidence that E.C. Otoo acquired his land from a person other than the Asere Mantse as against the plaintiff who obtained his grant from the Asere Mantse.
3. The leaned trial judge failed to appreciate that E.C. Otoo having concurred in the grant of the land to the plaintiff by the Asere Mantse he E.C. Otoo had abandoned any claim he had to the land and/or alternatively, that he had acknowledged the title of the Asere stool and its right to grant the land to the plaintiff.
4. The learned trial judge failed to appreciate that Benjamin Komla Debrah’s document registered with Land Registry No. 27/1976 did not grant him title to the land and especially so when the evidence showed that his document had been deleted from the records of the Land Commission. The Learned trial judge consequently erred in relying on Debrah’s document as a basis of his title.
On the basis of these grounds, he seeks from this Court, an order setting aside the judgment on appeal and in its place asks that judgment be entered in his favour.
First, there is a need to make two preliminary comments. The practice has been for the courts to record cross examination in a question and answer format and to take the evidence in chief in free narrative style. This long established practice was not followed by the trial court and thus made the proceedings “clumsy and disjointed and impedes a fluent perusal of the evidence so led”. These were the words of the Supreme Court in the case of In re Agbenu(decd); Agbenu v Agbenu 2009 SCGLR 636 @641 when ordering a trial de novo partly for the reason that there was confusion in the recording of proceedings. That case was heard by the same trial judge who heard the present case on appeal. Lower courts a