May 19, 2010
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana addressed a constitutional reference from the High Court regarding the La Wireless Station lands at Cantonments, Accra, acquired under Cap. 138 with a 1957 certificate of title. La Mantse Nii Kpobi Tettey Tsuru II claimed that recent government developments, including Ghana@50 housing later offered for sale, violated article 20(5) and (6) and sought the first option to re-acquire the land. Writing for the majority, Dotse JSC held that article 20 is prospective and does not apply to acquisitions predating the 1992 Constitution, relying on article 107 and cases such as Ellis v Attorney-General. The Court construed public interest broadly and treated complaints about sales as non-constitutional. It criticized the High Court for delivering judgment before referral, dismissed the constitutional referral as inapplicable, and remitted the case to the High Court for determination consistent with article 130(2).
ATUGUBA, J.S.C:-
This case came before us upon a reference from the High Court, Fast Track/Automated Division, Accra, presided over by Victor Ofoe, J.A. The facts as stated by him are as follows:
“The property in dispute, popularly known as “La Wireless Station is the property of the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that the land of 92.490 acres was acquired pursuant to the Public Lands (Leasehold) Ordinance of 1950 by the Government of Ghana for a term of 99 years commencing from the 1st day of January, 1948. It is also not in dispute that by virtue of the Certificate of Title that was issued under the Ordinance the said land was acquired for the purposes of a “Wireless Station”. Further it is a fact that recently the Government of Ghana has entered unto the land which had hitherto been lying fallow for years and had commenced extensive developments of substantial buildings not meant for use by the Wireless Station. These said developments the government is executing through a body known as “Ghana @ 50”. It is plaintiff’s case that the act of the government is in violation of the 1992 Constitution, specifically Article 20(5) and (6).
X X X
It is the contention of the plaintiff that the land in issue was compulsory (sic) acquired not in the public interest at large, but for a specific public purpose i.e. for the establishment of a Wireless Station for which purpose it is no longer required. Consequently the La Stool is entitled to be given the first option for acquiring the property and the government can not put the land to any other use than use of the Wireless Station, the only purpose for which the land was acquired.
The plaintiff has a further complaint. It is that succeeding governments have compulsorily acquired large tracts of “La lands for next to nothing in financial terms and are being allocated by the Government of Ghana to private developers at astronomical sums of money while the people of La “languish in poverty, squalor, hunger and state of utter deprivation of roads, sanitary facilities and other modern amenities of life”.
It is the same manner the present government is treating La land. The plaintiff contends that in so taking over the lands, which presently is their only valuable asset, resulting in “emasculating the development of La to discriminatory, unfair and unjust treatment to the total disadvantage of the people of La to the advantage of some other sections of the Ghana population contrary to the preamble and the Directive P