Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC
Both the plaintiff-appellant-respondent (plaintiff) and the Defendant-respondentappellant (defendant) claimed title to the disputed land situated at East Legon. The
identity of the land was not in dispute. The trial judge resolved the rival claims in
favour of the defendant on grounds, inter alia, that the defendant was able to
establish his root of title through the La Klanaa Quarter that owns the lands at
Oteele-Bawaleshie of which the land in dispute formed part. As to the issue of
possession the trial judge held that the fact that the plaintiff acquired the land in
1974 and erected walls did not mean she was in effective possession as against the
true owner as she was a mere squatter. The trial judge also held that the mere fact
that the plaintiff has registered title deeds as against the defendant does not validate
the illegality since registered documents does not confer state guaranteed title to
the disputed land.
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge holding that on the evidence the
plaintiff has been in long uninterrupted possession from 1974/75 until 1998, which
is 23 years before Mallam Musa challenged her title. As to the 1991 judgment of
the Circuit Court that the La Klanaa Quarter relied on to claim title to the land, the
appellate court held it was given 17 years after the plaintiff had been in possession;
and that by virtue of the operation of section 10 (6) of the Limitation Act, 1972
(NRCD54), any title it had was extinguished after 12 years. So the appellate court
held that at the time Mallam Musa and subsequently the La Klanaa Quarter made
their grants to the Defendant they had no title to the land. The Defendant in turn
appealed to the Supreme Court from the judgment of the Court of Appeal on
grounds which would be set out in full when being considered in the course of the
judgment.
The Defendant submits that the Court of Appeal erred when it based its judgment
on the Limitation Act which was not pleaded as required under Order 11 rule 8(1)
of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I. 47
We are of the view that this case can be decided on other grounds as indeed in this
court, no judgment is upset on the ground that its ratio is erroneous if there is
another sound basis on which it can be supported -per Apaloo J.A as he then was
in Seraphim v Amua-Sekyi [1971]2 GLR 132 at 134
Validity of the competing titles
There is no doubt as to the identity of the land the subject