JOYCE YEBOAH v. CHARLES ASAMOAH

KOOMSON JSC;

INTRODUCTION & FACTS:

My Lords,

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 30th July, 2020. The appeal centres on the authority of the Lands Commission to grant

the land in dispute and turns on whether the land in dispute is a state land or vested land or stool land or family land.

The Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) commenced this action against the Defendant/Appellant/ Appellant (hereinafter referred at as Defendant) in the year 2009 in the High Court, Sunyani claiming the following reliefs:

a. Declaration of title and recovery of possession of all that Building Plot No. 96, Block “F”, Abesim Stool land granted to the Plaintiff by the Lands Commission Secretariat, Sunyani.

b. General Damages.

c. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his assigns, labourers, servants, relatives and all those who purport to derive title from the Defendants from in any manner dealing or interfering with the Building Plot in dispute.

Plaintiff claims that sometime in 2005 she applied to the Regional Lands Secretariat, Sunyani for a building plot from the Commission. Subsequent to her application, the Commission granted the Land in dispute to her and she paid all the relevant fees. The Plaintiff claims that she had been in undisturbed possession of the land since the grant until the Defendant sought to make adverse claim to the property.

It is the case of Defendant that he acquired the Land from Opanin Kwame Ofori and family in April 2009. The Ofori family had a lease in respect of the land and had already been in possession. However, the Defendant claims that there was a dispute between the Lands Commission and the Defendant’s grantors over the land and several others which are yet to be resolved. According to the Defendant, the Lands Commission has no right to allocate the land to the Plaintiff.

In a Replay dated 9th June, 2009, the Plaintiff admitted that the Defendant’s grantors had a lease except that the Plaintiff claims that it was for farming and when the use/usage changed, the land reverted to the Lands Commission and Executive Instrument 46 of 1961 applied. The Land being state vested Land, the Lands Commission carved same into building plots and allotted the disputed plot to the Plaintiff for residential purpose. Plaintiff says that the Defendant’s grantor was not clothed with capacity to have made the purported grant. The Lease from the Defendant’s grantor