2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal concerning orders made in prior judicial reviews regarding land registration. The defendants had earlier settled most issues with the Regional Lands Officer but continued to face registration hurdles, leading to further court actions, including a contempt motion and subsequent challenges by the plaintiff on fraud grounds. The High Court, Court of Appeal, and ultimately the Supreme Court found no evidence of fraud by defendants, asserting procedural correctness despite the non-joinder of the plaintiff. The decisions emphasized the importance of proof standards for fraud, proper avenues for appellate redress, and the discretionary powers of courts in procedural matters.
J U D G E M E N T
PWAMANG, JSC.
BACKGROUND AND FACTS
On 7th April 2005 defendants/respondents/respondents (herein referred to as defendants) filed a motion on Notice for Judicial Review in the form of mandamus against the Central Regional Lands Officer in the High Court, Cape Coast, praying for an order compelling the Regional Lands Officer to register a number of land instruments in the names of the defendants. The instruments were in respect of lands at Kasoa and Nyanyano in the Central Region.
Defendants stated in the affidavit in support of the application for mandamus that they submitted their documents to the Central Regional Lands Commission in March 2000 and since then the Lands Commission registered some to their documents but were refusing to register the others on grounds which the defendant considered were not justifiable.
When the Lands Commission was served with defendants’ application for mandamus, they opposed it on the basis that they had a number of concerns about defendants’ documents in respect of unpaid rents, absence of consents from defendant’s grantors and apparent errors and discrepancies contained in their documents.
From the record it appears both parties filed statements of case as required by Or 55 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I.47) and the application was placed before His Lordship Justice K. K. Acquaye (of blessed memory) for determination.
However, before K. K. Acquaye J. could determine the application for mandamus the defendants and the Regional Lands Commission settled almost all the issues arising on the application and filed Terms of Settlement. By the settlement, the Regional Lands Officer agreed to accept and plot defendants documents provided consents by their grantors were obtained. Nonetheless the parties agreed to abide by any directives the court would give in respect of the refusal of defendants’ grantors to give consent. There was also an issue of whether a new Legislative Instrument, LI 232, which required local publication of applications before registration, was applicable to defendants’ applications for registration.
K. K. Acquaye J. gave a ruling on the application on 19th September 2005 granting the order of mandamus. He held that defendants’ grantors were unreasonably withholding their consent so the Lands Commission should go ahead with the plotting and registration without the consents. He also held that the defendants’ applications for registration of their instruments we