June 29, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Amegatcher JSC, dismissed an appeal by the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs arising from a land dispute over Prampram property. The litigation began with the High Court’s judgment for the plaintiffs, later set aside by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court first addressed joinder, striking out the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant as unnecessary parties who had divested their interests, noting they should have served as witnesses. On the omnibus ground, the Court reiterated that appeals are by rehearing and require specific evidential lapses; the appellants offered none, and the Court of Appeal’s review (including the respondent’s counterclaim) stood. On the merits, the Court rejected the appellants’ plea of bona fide purchaser for value without notice, emphasizing the need for official pre-acquisition searches at the Lands Commission. It further clarified that under PNDCL 152 and LI 1341, transfers of registered land are effected by prescribed transfer instruments, not deeds of assignment. With these holdings, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal.
AMEGATCHER JSC:-
INTRODUCTION
This suit commenced in the Land Division of the High Court where both parties claimed to have obtained the property, the subject matter of the dispute, from the same grantor. After a full trial, the High Court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of all of their reliefs. On 16th May 2019, the Court of Appeal allowed the 1stdefendant’s (hereafter called the respondent) appeal and set aside the High Court Judgment. Aggrieved by the Court of Appeal judgment, the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs (hereafter called the appellants) have appealed to this Court. Despite the multiple issues raised in the initial claim, the appeal before this Court has been mainly narrowed down to the issue of bonafide purchaser for value without notice and the respondent’s counterclaim.
FACTS
The 1st plaintiff claimed that per two deeds of assignment from the 2nd defendant dated 25th May 2008 and 27th May 2008, she was assigned two parcels of land at Prampram measuring 25.97 acres and 24.33 acres, respectively. The 1st plaintiff, on 1st January 2010, assigned her interest in these two parcels of land to the appellants. The appellants subsequently presented their documents to the Land Title Registry for processing and were issued a yellow card dated 29th March 2010. The appellants averred that after the grant, they went into possession of the property and remained in quiet, peaceful, and undisturbed possession until May 2011 when the respondent trespassed on the property. The appellants also stated that the Land Certificate issued to the respondent was procured by fraud and that they are purchasers for value without any notice of defect in the 1st plaintiff’s title.
The Respondent who was originally the only Defendant until he joined the 2nd defendant to the suit, denied that the 2nd defendant had assigned the property in dispute to the 1st plaintiff. According to the respondent, he entered into a contract of sale dated 22nd March 2007 with the 2nd defendant for the sale of a parcel of land at Prampram measuring 76.41 acres. Pursuant to the contract of sale, the 2nd defendant registered its interest in the land at the Land Title Registry, obtained a land certificate, and subsequently transferred its registered interest to the respondent. Consequently, the respondent was issued a land certificate dated 4th April 2008.The respondent claimed that he was in physical possession of the land and that the appellants had rather trespassed on his land b