OBOSHI SAI v. SUNDEEP DHAWAN
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- GBIEL S. SUURBAAREH JA (PRESIDING)
- MERLEY WOOD JA
- RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Environmental Law
- Tort Law
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This interlocutory appeal from the Court of Appeal, Ghana, addresses whether Sections 98 and 101 of the Local Governance Act, 2016 (Act 936) require exhaustion of internal remedies before parties can invoke the ordinary courts in disputes linked to District Development Plans. The case arose at Roman Ridge, Accra, where the landholder of Plot No. 4 complained that his neighbor excavated and deposited materials on a reserved green space, intending to erect shops, thereby creating a nuisance. The neighbor had a building permit obliging landscaping and later secured an Ayawaso Sub-Metro permit to beautify the frontage and erect a temporary flower shop and watch post. The High Court refused a preliminary objection requiring internal remedies first, but on appeal the Court of Appeal held that binding precedent mandates the statutory procedure be followed. It set aside the High Court’s ruling, dismissed the respondent’s action, and directed exhaustion of remedies under Sections 98 and 101, noting the Planning Authority’s enforcement powers against nuisance under Section 96.
RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA:
This interlocutory appeal turns on the interpretation to be put on the provisions in Sections 98 and 101 of the Local Governance Act, 2016 (Act 936). To put the issue in due perspective, we state the provisions at the very outset:
“98 (c) A person who is aggrieved by a decision, action or policy related to an approved District Development Plan or the enforcement of the plan may lodge a complaint for redress or compensation with the District Planning Authority within six months after the date of approval of the District Development Plan, or the revocation or variation of a permit or of the taking of the decision or action complained of.
101. A person aggrieved by a decision or the action of a District Planning Authority in connection with a District Development Plan, may appeal to the Regional Minister who shall refer the appeal to the Appeals Advisory Committee within one month after the receipt of the notice of the decision or action.”
Now, should the above provisions be construed to the effect that, a party must necessarily exhaust those procedures before invoking the jurisdiction of the ordinarily courts?
The trial judge had answered the above issue in the negative. The appellant disagrees and appeals in this court. But first, how did the antecedent events unfold?
The parties claim ownership of two different pieces of land at the Roman Ridge area, Accra. The land in controversy is contiguous to the plots being claimed by the parties. Indeed, neither of them claims ownership of the subject land.
According to the respondent who claims ownership of plot No.4, the appellant is his neighbour whose dwelling house is across the street and next to the appellant’s plot. He claims to have acquired his plot with the intention of developing same into first class executive apartments. For this purpose, he had walled the land and sunk huge sums of money to commence the development.
Describing the subject land as an open space reserved for green park by the Metropolitan Assembly, the respondent claims he noticed that the appellant had entered upon same, started excavating the place and deposited materials there with the intention of developing it into shops. This development amounted to nuisance to the use of his property and the open space concept of the reserved land as a green area. He therefore commenced the suit at the High Court essentially to restrain the appellant from committing what he claims to be nuisance.
For the appel