2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Authored by Lovelace-Johnson JSC, the Supreme Court resolved a dispute over Plot No. K21 in Takoradi’s Superior Residential Area (Discove Hill/Kokompe). Two residents of Takoradi held a 2014 lease granted by the Anona Royal Family of Apremdo and relied on a Sekondi High Court suit (Nana Egodzi Essuon III v Nana Gyan Kofi IV) and Ministry of Defence minutes and correspondence concerning release of Kokompe lands. The opposing party held a 99‑year lease (commencing 2011) from the Government of Ghana through the Western Regional Lands Commission, supported by Lands Commission records and DW1’s testimony of acquisition under the Takoradi and Town Acquisition Ordinance. The High Court initially favored the residents based on prior possession; the Court of Appeal reversed, applying the presumption of regularity under the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption, Exhibit D did not release the land, the military lacked authority to release State land, and the grantor had no title to convey. The appeal was dismissed.
LOVELACE-JOHNSON (JSC):-
The designation of the parties at the High Court will be maintained in this appeal.
The facts of this matter are not complicated. It is a fact that though differently described, the parties are laying claim to the same piece of land, described as plot No K 21, by both of them, even if with a slight variation in size (0.31 as opposed to 0.37 of an acre). It is also a fact that while the plaintiffs found their title to the land on a grant by the Anona Royal Family of Apremdo in the year 2014, the Defendants found their title on a lease in the year 2011 from the Government of Ghana, the land the subject matter in dispute, according to them, being State land.
See the writ of summons, statement of claim and statement of defence and counterclaim at pages 1-4, and 9-10 of the Record of Appeal. (ROA)
The issue at the core of this dispute, as rightly stated by the Court of appeal in its judgment found at page 401 of the ROA and reproduced in the Statement of Case of counsel for the plaintiffs, is
“whether the disputed land is state land vested in the President in trust for the people and managed by the Lands Commission or whether it constitutes private property validly conveyed to the Respondents as part of their Grantors’ ancestral lands”
The trial High Court found for the plaintiffs and stated in its judgment at page 252 of the ROA that
“The evidence supports a finding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land at the [sic] the defendant went unto it. Given the plaintiffs’ prior possession, the law protects them against all except one who could prove superior title. The defendant has not proved a superior title. The plaintiff thus succeeds in proving ownership against the defendant and so I declare”
Upon appeal by the defendant, the Court of Appeal took the position that the evidence led during the trial
“clearly preponderate in favour of the Appellant’s version that the disputed land constitutes state land which has been validly conveyed to her by the Lands Commission under Lease dated 24th August 2012.” See page 414 of the ROA
It is their dissatisfaction with the resolution of the core issue earlier stated in the above manner by the Court of Appeal that has led to the plaintiffs launching the present appeal to this court.
In sum, the complaints by the plaintiffs per their eight grounds of appeal found at page 419 of the ROA are that the Court of Appeal did not consider their case, erred on who carried the burden of