JOHN K. A KLU v. MAVIS DARKO AND DR. KOFI KONADU APRAKU

J U D G M E N T

ATUGUBA, J.S.C:

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Plaintiff / Respondent / Appellant (herein-after referred to as the plaintiff) and co-defendant/appellant/respondent (herein-after called the co-defendant) assert rival titles to plot no. 234 block 8 Section 114 situate at La-Bawaleshi (East Legon).

Resolution of the rival titles

The trial judge resolved the rival claims in favour of the plaintiff on the grounds inter alia, that the plaintiff was a bona-fide purchaser of the land without notice of the fact that Nii Odai Ayiku IV of Nungua the grantor of his vendor had been, prior to his vendor's purported acquisition of title from him, destooled. As to a judgment affecting the land by an Accra Circuit Court the trial judge held that it is a settled principle that a purchaser of land is not estopped or affected by a judgment adverse to his vendor in proceedings commenced subsequent to the acquisition of his title. The trial judge also held that if the co-defendant had made the proper search at the proper place he would have known of the plaintiff's prior title, secured by a Land title Certificate, to the land and is therefore bound by it.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge by a majority of 3 – 2, holding that on the principle that Nemo dat quod non habet, the plaintiff acquired no valid title, in view of the said destoolment of Nii Odai Ayiku IV.

The Validity of the competing Titles

Assuming that Nii Odai Ayiku’s grant to the plaintiff’s vendor is invalid by reason of his prior destoolment that fact is not decisive of the matter.

The Land Title Certificate

The effect of a Land Title certificate has been considered in a few local cases, see Amegahie v. Okine (1992) 2 GLR 319, Republic v. Land Title Registrar, Ex parte Boahen II (2001-2002)1 GLR 42 and Brown v. Quarshigah (2003 – 2004) 2 SC GLR 930.

Whether they are all reconcilable, and if not which should be preferred to the other, needs not detain us in this case as it can be decided on less cloudy grounds.

The Limitation Decree

The appellant has pleaded in paragraphs 18 and 19 of his amended Reply to the amended statement of defence of co-defendant and Defence to Counterclaim dated 30/7/1999 at p.69 of the record of appeal as follows:

“18. Plaintiff avers that with all deference to the Judgment Plaintiff was not party to Suit No. CCL 67/89 which was instituted after Plaintiff has been in effective possession and occupation of Plot No. 234 without let or hindrance since 1980 and