REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF AFRIKANIA MISSION v. MAJOR QUARSHIE
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OWUSU M., J.A. (PRESIDING)
- ACQUAYE, J.A.
- WELBOURNE, J.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal overturned the High Courts decision in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing the defendant's earlier claim to the disputed property based on a de-confiscation transfer order by President Kuffour. The court emphasized that the government's confiscation of property did not permanently extinguish the original owner's title as these properties could be returned by the government under specific provisions. It upheld the validity of the correction of typographical error in the deed. The dissenting judge, Justice Welbourne, argued that the plaintiff's equitable interest acquired in 1987 should prevail.
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A:
On 11-2-2011, the High Court, Accra, refused the defendant’s Counterclaim and granted all the reliefs endorsed by the plaintiff on its writ of summons.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the defendant appealed to this Court on the following grounds:
(a) The trial judge misdirected himself and gave an erroneous decision
PARTICULARS OF MISDIRECTION
i. Even though the plaintiff himself admitted in his statement of claim that he “pulled down the old structure that housed the Mission in order to build a modern structure that befit the Mission and its objectives and goals”, the judge stated that there was no proof that the Defendant/Appellant had his structure on that part of the land and that they were demolished by the Plaintiff/Respondent.
ii. Even though the Plaintiff/Respondent himself exhibited PNDCL 325 in which item 140 clearly stated that H/No. 2 Senchi Street’s owner is Quarshie K. A. (MAJ.) the Judge endorsed the Plaintiff’s assertion that he did not know that the land was confiscated from the Defendant.
(b) The Judge totally misapplied the law in the cases he cited as applicable in this case.
PARTICULARS OF MISAPPLICATION
I. That the Public Lands Ordinance, Cap 134 (1951 Rev) the compulsory Acquisition Law which gave the right of monetary compensation within a period is different from AFRCD 25, the Confiscated Assets Committee Decree 1979 upon which PNDCL 325 provided for the release of same to the owner with full rights etc.
II. Again the NLCD 72 Investigation and Forfeiture of Assets Decree also quoted is completely inapplicable since there was no later law to release same with full rights to owners.
(c) The Judge completely erred both in Law and facts in his assessment of the evidence adduced before him orally and by documents and this occasioned grave injustice to the Defendant/Appellant.
(d) The trial Judge completely misinterpreted the import of section 29 (3) of the Transitional Provisions of the 1992 Constitution in interpreting the position of the Attorney General in relation to the President in his equation to the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council or Provisional National Defence Council in his consideration of Exhibit 6A.
(e) The decision/judgment of the trial Judge cannot be supported having regard to the evidence on record or adduced by the parties before the court.
(f) The Judge misinterpreted the import or decision of the cited case CHRAJ VS. A. G [1998-1999] SCGLR 871 especially as to