Try asking the following...
RULING
RULING
G. T. WOOD (MRS.), C J:
In 1973, the Government of Ghana, acting under the authority of the Statutory Wayleaves Act, 1963, (Act 186) via Executive Instruments 44 and 46, created a wayleave over a parcel of land belonging to the Nungua stool. The land was, by the respondents’ amended pleadings, purposely earmarked for the construction of a high way. When the Government’s plans failed to materialize, the land was rezoned for commercial development and portions leased out for commercial use. Claiming that the applicants have no legal authority to grant leases over the land in view of the subsequent change in the development plans of Government, the 1st and 2nd interested parties, in their capacities as 1st and 2nd plaintiffs, instituted Suit No. BL 143/08 Nungua Stool vrs Tema Municipal Assembly and 4 Ors, before the High Court, Land Division, Accra, for the reliefs of:
a) Declaration of title to the land
b) An order cancelling the leases granted by 6th Defendant (Land Commission) to 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants.
c) An order directed at 6th defendant to process and plot grants by 1st Plaintiff particularly to 2nd Plaintiff.
d) Damages for trespass
e) Perpetual injunction
The applicant Commission successfully applied to join the action as the 6th defendant. In the events that followed, which included an attempted out of court settlement, and halfway through the trial, the applicant filed a motion to dismiss the substantive partly heard suit on the grounds that:
I. The High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs therein and 1st and 2nd interested parties herein since the effect of the grant would not only amend the extent and acreage of land covered by the said statutory instruments E.I 46 & 44 but also change the ownership status of the disputed land contrary to section 36 (2) of the Transitional Provisions of the 1992 Constitution; and
II. To grant the reliefs sought by the 1st and 2nd Interested parties would amount to an encouragement of illegal conduct and therefore contrary to public policy since it is a statutory offence to encroach on or dispose of public lands without reasonable cause; and that the pleadings of the 1st and 2nd Interested parties constituted clear and unambiguous admission of statutory infraction.
The trial judge denied the application on 27th June 2013 and ordered the Applicant to open their defence, on the legal basis that:
“ …evidence will have to be taken before the court can t