MISWA CHEMICALS GHANA LTD. v. EMMANUEL BORKETEY APLERH DOKU

JUDGMENT

HONYENUGA, JA

On the 1st day of August 2014, the High Court, Fast Track Division, Accra, dismissed the plaintiff’s action and awarded cost of GH¢15,000.00 to the defendant.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal to this court on the 31st day of August, 2014 based on the following grounds:-

“1. The judgment is against the weight of evidence.

2. The trial judge erred in law by failing to apply the provisions of Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122) to the effect that the registration of the land in dispute by plaintiff’s grantor constituted notice to defendants who are thereby estopped challenging plaintiff’s registered interest.

3. The trial judge erred in law by misinterpreting the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of REPUBLIC V COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO NUNGUA TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS, which in fact set aside the Mankralo of Nungua as a signatory of Nungua lands; the result of the error is that the trial judge wrongly held Exhibit 2 to be a valid grant of Nungua land.

Additional grounds of appeal to be filed upon receipt of the record of appeal”.

Indeed, additional grounds of appeal were filed as follows:

“4A. The trial judge erred in law by failing to apply the provisions of section 24(1) of the Land Registry Act. 1962, (Act 122) to respondent’s lease purportedly dated 14th June, 1999 and made between Numo Borketey Laweh, Gborbu Wulomo and Nii Bortrabi Obroni, Mankralo and Acting Nungua Mantse and respondent and to hold that the said instrument was of no effect for non-registration.

4B. The trial judge erred in law by failing to apply the provisions of section 8(1) of the Administration of Lands Act, 1962 (Act 123) to the respondent’s lease purported to have been dated 14th June, 1999 and made between Numo Borketey Laweh, Gborbu Wulumo and Nii Bortrabi Obroni II, Mankralo and Acting Nungua Mantse and respondent and to hold that the said lease is ineffective in vesting any interest in respondent for want of the minister’s concurrence.

4C. The trial judge committed an error by failing to take account of and apply the provision of sections 11(1) and (4), 12 and 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) and or 11 R.8(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 C.I. 47 in order to properly allocate the burden of proof and standard of proof. That would have made clear to the judge that there was burden of proof on the respondent which burden was not discharged”.

It must be noted that the appell