LANDS VALUATION BOARD v. NANA ANIMA II

Baffour J.A:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal raises for our consideration the hackneyed and often hallowed principle of the service of due notice on a party in a pending matter before the business of a trial court commences for a Judge to preside over the determination of a matter. If a party has not been duly notified of the conduct of the business of a court, then a court whose attention is drawn to such a palpable lapse must always strive to set the record straight and offer the aggrieved party not served the opportunity to be heard. On the other hand, if a party has been served with the necessary processes for his/her appearance in court and same exercise the option not to be present or refuse to participate in the business of the court, then it lies not in then mouth of such a party to turn round and complain that a decision has been delivered without any input from his/her side. For this there are a host of authorities that are explored infra. But first the factual matters that have given rise to this appeal.

FACTS

Large tract of land was acquired by the Republic for the purpose of the hydrological dam at Akosombo in the 1960’s. Subsequently, to avoid loss of human lives and property due to flooding in some of the catchment areas of the Volta lake, a number of executive instruments including State Lands (Volta River Flooded area), 1974, E. I 98 and its amendment, E. I 67 were passed to compulsorily acquire more lands in the Volta, Eastern, and the Northern and Brong Ahafo Regions. Compensation was paid to the chiefs of the some of the affected areas. The Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”) as the Queenmother of Mankralo stool of Apaaso, in the Akwamu traditional area of the Eastern Region, commenced an action against the Mankralo and his predecessor for recovery of an amount of GH₵158,881.92, being monies Respondent alleged was paid by the 3rd Defendant/Appellant (hereinafter called the “Appellant”) to the two Mankralos.

It is instructive to note that the Respondent’s only relief against the Appellant was for an order of injunction against the State institution or any of its agents from paying further compensation to any other persons except the Respondent. (See page 2 of the record of appeal on the endorsement on the writ). Indeed, the court granted such an injunction on the 15th of April, 2010 to restrain the Appellant from paying any further compensation. And on the 18th of November, 2010, the court below further order