REPUBLIC v. THE HIGH COURT, LAND DIV. (7) ACCR

TORKORNOO (MRS), JSC:-

The matters in controversy in this application for an Order of Certiorari have zig-zagged between the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, since 2017, and unworthily so.

BACKGROUND

On 8th March 2017, the 1st Interested Party herein sued the 2nd and 3rd Interested parties in a suit titled and numbered Adolph Tetteh Adjei v Anas Aremeyaw Anas, Holy Quaye Suit No LD/0256/2017 for declaration of title to 2.0 acres of land situate at East La Dadekotopon, damages for trespass, recovery of possession and injunction to restrain further trespass. After entering appearance and without filing a defence, the 2nd and 3rd Interested Parties prayed the high court presided over by Justice Gyimah for an order to dismiss the suit on the ground that it is an abuse of process.

According to the Ruling of Gyimah J attached to the application before us as Exhibit B and dated 31st August 2017, the ground for their application was that the issue of ownership of the land in dispute had been decided by Justice Ofori-Atta in 2010 in the case of Edward Mensah Tawiah, and Ewormenyo Ofoli Kwashie v The Ag Chief Registrar of Lands and The Trustees, East Dadekotopon Development Trust, Suit No BL 431/2006. That, the parties in the dispute before Gyimah J were privies of the parties in the case decided by Ofori Atta J and therefore, the dispute regarding title to the land claimed by the 1st Interested Party herein was a matter that is res judicata.

Gyimah J also found from the affidavits and arguments of Counsels that though the judgment of Ofori Atta J had been appealed against and compromised in Terms of Settlement and a Consent Judgment that the Court of Appeal had adopted as the Appellate judgment in Edward Mensah Tawiah , Ewormenyo Ofoli Kwashie v The Ag Chief Registrar of Lands and The Trustees, East Dadekotopon Development Trust, that Consent Judgment had been declared to be void on account of fraud by a ruling given by Justice Abada in Daniel Ofoli Ewormienyo v. Edward Nsiah Akuetteh and numbered BMISC 720/2015.

According to Gyimah J in his ruling, it had been pointed out to him that the decision of Abada J in suit number BMISC 720/2015 was an interlocutory decision in a different matter than what was before Gyimah J. Still, in Gyimah J’s opinion, ‘a careful reading of the decision (by Abada J) revealed that the said decision effectively determined the rights between the parties’ (in this Suit No LD/0256/2017 before Gyimah J).

Gyimah J