2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a land title dispute arising from South Legon, Accra, the Supreme Court of Ghana, per M. Owusu JSC, dismissed the Plaintiff Company’s further appeal from the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff claimed ownership of approximately 2.626 acres through a January 2006 conveyance from the Osu Stool, took possession, and built a fence and security post. The Defendants contended the land was state-owned, compulsorily acquired in 1946, and that the 2nd Defendant lawfully obtained a government grant in November 2010. The central question was the nemo dat quod non habet principle: whether the Osu Stool could grant what it did not own. The Court relied on PW1’s admissions that the land belonged to the Government of Ghana, affirmed that the Osu Stool lacked title, and upheld the trial and appellate courts. On an injunction issue, Exhibit 4 authorized the Lands Commission’s management during the ongoing litigation, rendering its grant to 2nd Defendant lawful. All grounds failed; the appeal was dismissed.
M. OWUSU (JSC):-
The issue for determination in this appeal borders on the legal maxim “Nemo dat quad non habet”, that is one cannot give what he does not have or possess at the material time of the conveyance.
On the 20th April, 2018, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Plaintiff/Appellant’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal held among other things as follows:
“From the evidence the plaintiff has failed to establish that it has valid title to the land. Its grantors have admitted the land is state land, they have no right to enter the land and make grants of same. The plaintiff in effect acquired nothing. The conclusion the trial judge came to is supported by the evidence on record.
The appeal has no merit it is hereby dismissed”.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Plaintiff/Appellant filed the present appeal to the Supreme Court on the following grounds:
1.The Court of Appeal erred in affirming the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Accra which was against the weight of the evidence adduced at the trial.
2.The learned trial Judge in the High Court of Justice, failed to evaluate the evidence adduced or to resolve the primary issues put before her and the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the wrongful conclusions she came to per her judgment.
3.The learned trial Judge in the High Court of Justice, occasioned a grave miscarriage of Justice to the case of the plaintiff when she wrongfully held that the grant of the disputed land by the Lands Commission to the 2nd Defendant during the pendency of the suit Number BL 90/2004 was lawful and the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the Judgment of the High Court premised on that wrong holding.
The reliefs sought from the Supreme Court are:
i.That the Judgment of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the Judgment of the High Court of Justice, Accra and the award of costs be reversed,
ii.That Judgment be accordingly be entered for the Plaintiff/ Appellant/Appellant for the reliefs sought by it in the High Court of Justice, Accra.
iii.Any further or other orders as the Supreme Court will deem fit to make.
Before dealing with the arguments advanced in support and against this appeal, we would give a brief background of this case.
By its amended writ of summons, the Plaintiff Company claimed against the Defendants the following reliefs:
A.A declaration of title to all that parcel of land the property of the plaintiff situates a