GIHOC REFRIGERATION & HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS LTD. v. JEAN HANNA ASSI

J U D G M E N T

AKUFFO (MS), J.S.C.

I have been fortunate to have had previous sight of the opinion about to be read by my learned brother Dr. Date-Bah, JSC and I am in agreement with his conclusion that the substantive appeal must be dismissed. I fully support his reasons leading to this conclusion. Unfortunately, however, I cannot agree with his conclusion regarding the Respondent’s cross-appeal. Rather, for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion on the matter, I join my esteemed brother Prof. Ocran JSC in the view that the cross appeal should succeed. I, however, wish to express myself further on this aspect of the matter before us.

Throughout the trial of this matter, the Respondent’s original ownership of the property was never in any serious question, and, therefore, once the trial judge found that the Appellant had never acquired any adverse title to the same, it necessarily followed that the Respondent remained the owner thereof, since his title had never been affected by the government’s confiscatory action and the Appellant’s occupation of the land. Hence, the trial judge’s declaration of the Respondent’s title was in the nature of a consequential relief, a verbalisation of a status that was necessarily implied by his findings.

It needs to be noted that of the issues set down for trial, issue 2 of the Additional Issues read as follows:-

“Whether or not the Defendant holds full legal title to the property in

question.”

Thus, in the course of the trial, the Respondent tendered, through the Appellant, without any objection, various correspondence (exhibits 1 – 6), which overwhelmingly establish the Respondent’s title to the land and the Respondent’s entitlement to immediate possession thereof. Additionally, the Respondent’s Land Title Certificate no. GA 8570, issued by the Land Title Registry was placed into evidence as exhibit 8. Now, Section 43(1) of the Land Title Registration Law, 1986

(PNDCL 152) stipulates that:-

“Subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this section and section 48 of this Law, the rights of a registered proprietor of land whether acquired on first registration or acquired subsequently for valuable consideration or by an order of a Court, shall be indefeasible and shall be held by the proprietor together with all privileges and appurtenances attaching thereto free from all other interests and claims whatsoever.”

(It is clear that the section and subsections to which this provision is made subject are inapplic