ERNESTINA OWUSU FRIMPONG & ORS v. MR. BINEY AND MRS. BINEY
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)
- BENIN JSC
- AKAMBA JSC
- APPAU JSC
- PWAMANG JSC
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A land dispute in Elmina between a school builder and a couple who purchased land from a common grantor was adjudicated. Initial lower courts gave conflicting rulings, leading to a Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, emphasizing the validity of land grants via site plans in registered documents, dismissing claims of estoppel by acquiescence due to lack of substantial development, and correcting the appellate court's findings.
JUDGMENT
PWAMANG, JSC.
This case concerns a small piece of land at Elmina and was commenced in the District Magistrate Court, Elmina by a writ of summons issued on 27th October, 2005. In this judgment the plaintiff/appellant/respondent/appellant will be referred to as “plaintiff” and the defendants/respondents/appellants/respondents as “defendants”.
The facts of the case are that the land in dispute formed part of land that was taken for the building of the SSNIT Flats at Elmina but was later surrendered to one Mrs Hannah Amissah. Before surrendering the land to Mrs Hannah Amissah, SSNIT permitted developments of portions of the land but did not make formal grants to the developers.
In year 2000 the defendants, who are husband and wife, acquired 1.36 acre of the land from Mrs Amissah and it is their case that the land in dispute formed part of their acquisition. Upon the acquisition, demarcation pillars were erected on the ground showing their boundaries. An indenture containing a site plan was executed for them by Mrs Amissah which they registered at the Lands Commission, Cape Coast in 2001. Sometime after the registration defendants constructed a perimeter wall covering their land including the disputed land. They stated that during the construction of the wall plaintiff came around to check to ensure they did not enter her land but she did not complain about the location of their wall.
In year 2001 plaintiff, who had been permitted by SSNIT to build a school named ‘Fair Weather School’ on the land, went to Mrs Amissah for a formal grant to cover the school land. When she met Mrs Amissah she requested her to add a piece of vacant land adjoining her school to her grant. Mrs Amissah told her that before she would add the adjoining land, plaintiff and the surveyor should check at the Lands Commission to be sure she had not already sold out the adjoining land. The land in dispute in this case is part of the adjoining land.
Plaintiff checked at the Lands Commission at Cape Coast and was informed that in their records the land was free and she duly informed Mrs Amissah. As a result Mrs Amissah sold the land to plaintiff and executed an indenture for her with a site plan covering both the school land and the disputed land. Plaintiff submitted her indenture to the Lands Commission for registration. While plaintiff’s indenture was being registered she met 2nd defendant on the disputed land and questioned her why she was interfering with her land. 2nd defend