JEANETTE HAYFRON-BENJAMIN & ANOR VS LANDS COMMISSION

AMEGATCHER JSC: -

INTRODUCTION On 14th December 2022, this court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 20th May 2021 which affirmed a ruling of the High Court dated 31st July 2017, and reserved its reasons to be assigned not later than 25th January 2023. We, now, proceed with the reasons for our judgment.

BACKGROUND The interesting facts of this case are as follows; on the 8th of June 2015, the plaintiff/respondent/respondent (hereafter referred to as the respondent) applied to the defendant for a parcel of land in any prime business district in Accra to put up its headquarters.

After a series of meetings, the defendant issued an allocation letter which also contained an offer to the respondent.

The respondent was allocated a parcel of land at North Ridge covering an area of 1. 38 acres with a site plan attached to it.

By a letter dated 29th July 2015, the respondent accepted the offer and paid certain amounts as consideration in fulfillment of the requirements of the offer.

When the Greater Accra Regional Lands Commission held its 38th regular meeting on 19th August 2015, it confirmed the allocation to the respondent and subsequently, issued a second offer to the respondent.

This land allocated to the respondent is the subject matter of this dispute.

The twists following the allocation to the respondent then started.

By a letter dated 7th December 2015, the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing claiming to have a structure on the said land wrote to the respondent and demanded the payment of a replacement value of its bungalow assessed at GHC500, 000. 00. It appears because of the seriousness the respondent attached to the allocation of the plot, it paid this amount to the Ministry without any hesitation.

On 5th January 2016, the respondent applied for an official search at the Lands Commission.

It confirmed that the land had indeed been allocated to the respondent.

However, the defendant refused to execute a lease in favour of the respondent so the respondent commenced an action in the High Court for the following reliefs: a. An order requiring the Defendants to issue a lease in respect of the land covered by the allocation letter dated 23rd day of July 2015 to the Plaintiff the beneficial owner of the land; b. Recovery of possession of the land covered by the allocation letter dated 23rd July 2015; c. In the alternative to a) and b) above, an order to replace the land covered by