JUDGMENT

BAFFOE-BONNIE AG. CJ:-

On the 28th day of May, 2020, the Applicant /Appellant/Appellant (hereinafter called Appellant) applied for judicial review pursuant to Order 55 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 (C.I 47) seeking to compel the performance of Respondent/Respondent/Respondent’s (hereinafter called Respondent) statutory duty. The Appellant by an application in the High Court, Koforidua sought for an order of mandamus to compel the Respondent to perform its statutory duty as mandated by the law. According to the Appellant in his Affidavit in support, he submitted a request for an approved layout site plan to the office of the Respondent but same was refused on the basis that the site in question had been earmarked as a site for community right of space. The Appellant claimed that there was no legal basis for the refusal by the Respondent because the earmarking of the site as a community right of space did not extinguish the rights and interests of the family who first cultivated the land and were still in possession of the land. It is the case of the Appellant that an approved layout land was mandatorily required for the conduct of a search at the Lands Commission, preparation of an indenture and seeking of compensation from the government and even the registration of the land. The Respondent was therefore bound to prepare an approved layout plan for whoever requested for that service. It is the claim of the Appellant that the refusal was a violation of his family’s fundamental human rights and a right to enjoin public service. More so, it is the claim of the Appellant that the refusal has also denied his family the opportunity to seek for the payment of compensation or the right to enjoy the land. Based on these claims, it is the assertion of the Appellant that the Respondent would not perform its statutory duty unless the court compelled it to do so by an order of mandamus.

In the Affidavit in opposition filed by the Respondent, the claims of the Appellant were vehemently denied. It was the case of the Respondent that the parcel of land in question had been acquired by the Assembly in the year 2000 and the Assembly had proposed that land as a community right of space as light industrial land use as provided for in the Local Government Act, 2016 (Act 936). The Respondent denied the Appellant’s assertion of any claim of ownership of the land to the Kyidom family and further contented that before the acquisition of the l