MARINA HOTEL LTD v. STEPHEN OFOSU MENSAH
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARFUL-SAU, JA (PRESIDING)
- GNES DORDZIE, JA
- MARGARET WELBOURNE, JA
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant, Marina Hotel Ltd, appealed a High Court judgment concerning the title to a piece of land acquired by the State under EI 75. The appellant argued the judgment was against the weight of evidence and provided additional grounds for appeal. The appellant's title was based on a consent judgment and a subsequent lease from the Lands Commission. The respondent's claim was based on an unregistered conveyance and a Circuit Court judgment. The appeal court held that the respondents unregistered conveyance and the subsequent judgment were ineffective, rendering the appellant's title superior. The trial courts judgment was set aside, and judgment was entered in favor of the appellant, excluding aggravated damages for trespass.
JUDGMENT
MARFUL-SAU, JA: - This appeal which is taken from the judgment of the High Court (Fast Track Division) dated the 23rd of July 2010 raises one fundamental legal issue. That issue is this: with the subsistence of E1 75, the instrument that vested the land in dispute in the State, which of the parties in this case has a better title to the land? The plaintiff who is the appellant herein in the Notice of Appeal formulated one ground which is that the judgment was against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial. However pursuant to leave granted the appellant on the 12th November 2013, ten additional grounds of appeal were filed. Upon examination of the record of appeal it does apear that all the grounds of appeal seek to address the ultimate issue, as to which of the parties had a better title to the land in dispute. I shall therefore in this appeal address the fundamental issue so identified and stated above.
From the record of appeal there is no dispute that the land the subject of this case was acquired by the State on the 3rd of July 1973. The Executive Instrument that vested the land in the State is EI 75. This Instrument was exhibited by the defendant, now the respondent herein during the trial as exhibit 4 and it is at page 286 of the record of appeal. The acquisition was done by the State pursuant to the State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125). The land in dispute is a smaller portion of the entire land measuring 2002.58 acres situate at Kwabenya acquired for the State under EI 75. From the record of appeal there is no evidence that EI 75 had been revoked or that the State had surrendered it interest in the land so acquired.
So the question is: with all the parties agreed that the land was acquired by the State for the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission, which of the parties in this appeal has a better title or interest in the land in dispute? To address this fundamental issue I will have to examine the root of title of the parties in this case. The appellant from the evidence on record traces it title to a consent judgment which was entered for it in the case titled Ghana Atomic Energy Commission vrs. Marina Hotel Ltd in suit No.L836/95. The consent judgment was dated the 3rd of May 2001 and it was exhibited at the trial as exhibit B and it is at page 261 of the record of appeal. The record revealed that the High Court in the case cited above made the following orders:-
‘’BY COURT: Upon the terms of settlement filed on 5/4/2001, judgment is enter