2012
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involved a challenge by plaintiffs, Ghanaian citizens, against a lease of government property to a high-ranking official, alleging constitutional breaches. While accusations of corruption, cronyism, and conflict of interest were levied, the court largely found no substantive proof for these claims. The property grant was argued to have violated cabinet policy and constitutional guidelines demanding public interest use. Despite the plaintiffs' failure to substantiate several claims, conflicting opinions emerged over whether the actions adhered to constitutional mandates. The majority dismissed the case, whereas a minority emphasized adherence to government land policies and broader fiduciary obligations under the Constitution.
BROBBEY JSC:
According to the plaintiffs, the subject matter of this case is the “land designated as parcel No. 29, Block 12, Section 019, in extent 1.04 acres more or less, as delineated on Registry Map No, 003/019/1988, on which is situated by the Republic of Ghana Bungalow No 2, located at Mungo Street, Ridge, Accra.” This description has not been challenged by any of the parties. The subject matter will hereafter be referred to as the disputed property for short.
The two plaintiffs instituted this action in their capacities as citizens of Ghana. Attempts were made to impugn the capacities of the plaintiffs but that issue has long been settled. The settled law is that where an individual brings an action under articles 2(1) and 132 of the 1992 Constitution, he is clothed with capacity to sue if he brings the action as a citizen of Ghana. The issue of the capacities of the plaintiffs will therefore not be belabored in this opinion.
This being a constitutional case, the first defendant, the Attorney General, has been sued as the Chief legal advisor of the Government.
Initially, the Chairman of the Lands Commission and the Chief Registrar of Lands were also sued as the second and third defendants. They were struck out as defendants. The second defendant joined the action later in his capacity as lessee or the beneficiary of the grant of the disputed property by way of a lease.
The facts which gave rise to the instant case are these: The disputed property in question was leased to the second defendant in 2008. The plaintiffs took the view that the lease was improper. They therefore invoked the original jurisdiction of this court for the following reliefs:
“1. A declaration that, by virtue of Articles 20(5) & (6), 23,257, 258, 265, 284 and 296 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992, the Minister of Water Resources, Works and Housing in the previous Government of His Excellency, President J. A. Kuffour, did not have the power to direct the sale, disposal or transfer of any Government or public land to the 2nd Defendant or any other person or body under any circumstances whatsoever, and that any such direction for the disposal, sale or outright transfer of the said property in dispute or any public land to the 2nd Defendant was unconstitutional and illegal.
2. A declaration, by virtue of Articles 20(5), 23, 257, 265, 284 and 296 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992, the Government of Ghana is obliged to retain and continue to