March 9, 2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Defendants, facing delays in registering land instruments for Kasoa and Nyanyano, applied in 2005 for mandamus in the High Court, Cape Coast against the Central Regional Lands Officer. Following settlement terms, Justice K. K. Acquaye granted mandamus, holding grantors consent was unreasonably withheld and LI 232 did not apply to defendants pre-existing applications. In 2008 contempt proceedings before Justice Ayimeh led to an order to expunge conflicting third-party registrations; the Lands Officer expunged the plaintiffs registration and notified him on 17 September 2008. In 2009, the plaintiff sued the defendants alleging fraud and lack of notice, seeking to nullify the 31 July 2008 order and reinstate his registration. After trial, Justice J. K. Dorgu dismissed fraud-related reliefs but granted an injunction. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal and set aside the injunction and ownership findings. On further appeal, Pwamang JSC, writing for the Supreme Court, dismissed grounds (a) and (b), found Article 19 inapplicable to civil proceedings, emphasized Order 55 discretion on notice, and dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Gbadagbe JSC concurred, highlighting the proper procedural route for non-parties to seek leave to appeal or judicial review.
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