NANA DATE AMPOFO VS TIEKU ALARBI & 4ORS
November 18, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP EMMANUEL AMO YARTEY (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
November 18, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Emmanuel Amo Yartey determined an interlocutory application filed on 27 September 2022 seeking to restrain the Defendants/Respondents and their agents from carrying out construction on disputed land until the suit’s final determination. The Defendants opposed, prompting the court to scrutinize evidentiary shortcomings in the Applicant’s supporting documents—a Power of Attorney, an indenture, and receipts—which bore no stamp duty. Citing Supreme Court authorities including Nartey v Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Plant and Lizori Ltd v Boye & Anor on stamping, and Abed Nortey v AIJC on mandatory survey plan approvals under L.I. 1444, the judge acknowledged the defects but, given the interlocutory posture, declined to give them dispositive weight. He noted Exhibit 7, a memorandum of understanding executed by the Defendants’ family, signaled recognition of the Plaintiff’s ownership, a matter reserved for trial. The court granted the injunction and made no order as to costs.
On the 27th day of September 2022, the Plaintiff/Applicant filed the instant Application praying the Court for an order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents either by themselves, their agents, assigns, workmen representatives, grantees, land guards, security guards, hirelings, whosever described from carrying out any construction activity on the disputed land pending the final determination of the suit.
The Application was resisted by the Defendants/Respondents.
A look at the submission put up by Counsel for the Respondents reveals serious legal issues this Court cannot gloss over.
In support of the Application the Applicant relied on a Power of Attorney (Exhibit 1), an indenture (Exhibit 2) and Receipts (Exhibits 2b).
A look at the above document depicts none is stamped as required by law.
In Nartey v Mechnanical Lloyd Assembly Plant [1987/88] 2 GLR 314, the Supreme Court held:
“… But since there is no impressed stamp on that purported conveyance it has legally worthless and its admission by the Court of Appeal… for in law, it should not have been admitted in evidence or made available for any purpose whatsoever.”
It is my candid opinion that since the Applicant is relying on the above document in support of the Application, same should have been stamped but which duty the Applicants woefully failed to discharge.
See the case of Lizori Ltd v Boye & Anor [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 889 where the Supreme Court per holding 1 at page 891 of the Report held as follows:
“… Either the document has been stamped and appropriate duty paid in accordance with the law in force at the time it was executed or it should not be admitted in evidence. There was no discretion to admit it in the first place and order the party to pay the duty and penalty after judgment. Thus the trial Court would have been perfectly justified to reject the receipts without stamping. Antie & Adjuwuah v Ogbo [2005-2006] SCGLR 496 distinguished.”
Also the Supreme Court held in the case of Abed Nortey v African Institute of Journalism and Communication & 2 Ors. Unreported Civil Appeal No. J4/47/2013 26th February, 2014 per Akamba JSC as follows:
“The Plaintiff tendered Exhibit A, a site plan which bears the same endorsements as in the Writ of Summons in apparent proof of his claim to the land, i.e. his root of title. Exhibit A is however not dated. It is also not signed by the Director of Survey or his representative. This is contrary to Section 3 (1) of L.