2014
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Ghana Court of Appeal decision, authored by Justice Mariama Owusu, reverses a High Court dismissal of the claims of Mohammed O. Lamptey concerning state land at Accra compulsorily acquired in 1968 for a cemetery. Lamptey, having regularized his interest with the Lands Commission, sought possession, ejectment of trespassers, and related reliefs against a church and associated occupiers claiming under Osei Asibey. The High Court had relied on Article 20(5)–(6) of the 1992 Constitution to invalidate Lampteys lease without hearing the parties. On appeal, the court held that Article 20 was not pleaded or in issue and could not be introduced suo motu; moreover, the record showed the land was state land and Lampteys lease was valid. The defendants failed to prove root of title, bona fide purchase, or laches. The Court of Appeal entered judgment for Lamptey, awarded GH a210,000 damages for trespass, granted a perpetual injunction, and ordered removal of the church building.
JUDGMENT
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A:
On 1st of February 2010, the High Court, Accra, dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against all the defendants as not proved. The Court awarded the 2nd to 4th defendants costs of One Thousand Ghana Cedis [GH¢1,000.000]. In coming to this conclusion, the trial judge held among other things as follows;
“I have no doubt in my mind that PW1’s family allocated the land to the plaintiff because they, that is, the government had left the rest. In my view where land has been acquired by government but there has been a failure to use the land or part thereof for the purpose for which it was acquired it does not lie in the power of any person or authority to take possession or ownership of the land.
By clause 6 of Article 20 of the 1992 constitution where land is not used as above stated the following may happen:
(i) The pre-acquisition owners of the land shall have first option to re-acquire the land
(ii) The whole of the compensation paid to the pre-acquisition owners or part thereof as is consistent with the use of the land shall be refunded by the pre-acquisition owners to the relevant authorities.
The amount of compensation shall depend on the value of the property at the time of the refund.
It is hoped, our traditional authorities will take note of the above statutory provisions”.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court, the plaintiff appealed to this Court on the following grounds;
(i) The trial court misdirected itself when it determined the matter in total disregard to all the issues set down for trial.
(ii) The trial judge unjustly adjudicated the matter on an issue not put forth by the parties thereby causing surprise.
(iii) The trial judge did not give the plaintiff a fair hearing when he suo moto held that the disputed property was affected by Article 20 (5) of the 1992 Constitution.
(iv) The trial judge failed to consider the plaintiff’s alternative claim against the 1st defendant.
(v) The trial court erred in holding that by Exhibit M and L the 2nd defendant had completed the church premises and was worshipping in it.
(vi) The judgment is against the weight of evidence.
Other grounds of appeal to be filed upon receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Relief Sought From The Court of Appeal:
The decision of the trial judge should be reversed.
The background to this case is as follows;
The plaintiff by his writ of summons claims against the 1st defendant,
a. An order for peaceful and quiet possession of the d