ROSINA ARYEE v. SHELL GHANA LTD & ANOTHER
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- WOOD (MRS) CJ (PRESIDING)
- ANSAH JSC
- DOTSE JSC
- YEBOAH JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court addressed a dispute over a piece of land leased by the State Housing Company to the plaintiff, then leased by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant, claiming the land was owned by the co-defendant, refused further rent payment. The co-defendant asserted they were bona fide purchasers having registered the title. Both lower courts ruled in favor of the co-defendant due to their prior registration. However, the Supreme Court overturned this, determining the co-defendant should have investigated the temporary structures on the land, thereby negating their bona fides. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff, including an order for ejectment and the recovery of unpaid rent and damages.
BENIN, JSC:-
This appeal raises two important principles of law, namely nemo dat quod non habet and priority of registrable instrument by a bona fide purchaser, which were relied upon by the plaintiff and the defendants, respectively. The trial High Court as well as the Court of Appeal agreed that the prior registration by the co-defendant who they considered a bona fide purchaser should prevail both on the facts and the law.
The facts of this case are very simple. The State Housing Company, hereafter called the Company, leased the land in dispute numbered 4A Lami Dwaahe Street situate at Adentan Housing Estate to the plaintiff/appellant/appellant, hereafter called the plaintiff. The plaintiff leased the land to the Defendant/respondent/respondent, hereafter called the defendant, for a term of fifteen years. Under the terms of the lease agreement the defendant paid the plaintiff rent advance for ten years, with rent for the remaining five years to be paid later at an appointed date. When the plaintiff went to demand payment for the rest of the term, the defendant refused saying the plaintiff was not the owner of the property and that the land was owned by the Co-defendant/respondent/respondent, hereafter called the co-defendant. The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant claiming, inter alia, ejectment for denial of title. In their defence the defendant maintained their position that the land was owned by the co-defendant. The defendant counterclaimed for a refund of their money inter alia. Subsequently Fraga Oil was joined to the suit as the co-defendant. The co-defendant pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers for value and had also duly registered their title in accordance with law. In response to the co-defendant’s claim, the plaintiff denied their claim to be bona fide purchasers and pleaded that they were in possession at the time in that they carried out business on the land. Apparently in May 2003 the State Housing Company had granted the same land to the co-defendant. The Company file on this property that was tendered in evidence as exhibit 1 confirms this, see pages 200, 213, 214 and 221 of the record of proceedings as well as the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record; thus there is no dispute about the identity of the land.
The case was contested on these facts. At the end the trial High Court found the claims by the co-defendant were established and so it entered judgment for them. The plaintiff appealed to th