2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court of Ghana appeal arose from a land dispute at Osu. In 2012 the plaintiff sued over title to land where he had built a house, joining the Lands Commission and later adding the present 1st defendant, who sought to register the land and claimed capacity as customary successor of the late Edward Kabu Otoo. After the High Court left the plaintiff in possession on acquiescence without granting title, the Court of Appeal dismissed the 1st defendant’s appeal and granted the plaintiff declaration of title and registration orders. On final appeal, Pwamang JSC, writing for the Court, took judicial notice under Section 9 of the Evidence Act of the Supreme Court’s prior final decision in Otoo v Otoo, which held that Edward Kabu Otoo died testate and devised all his properties. Concluding the 1st defendant lacked any interest or capacity, the Court struck him out and dismissed his counterclaim. Because the Lands Commission had no interest, the proceedings were incompetent to determine title, so the Supreme Court set aside both lower judgments and struck out the suit. Gbadegbe JSC concurred, stressing judicial notice’s exceptional, fairness-protecting role.
JUDGEMENT
PWAMANG, JSC:-
My Lords, before us is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 1st June, 2017 which, by majority decision, dismissed the appeal of the 1st defendant/appellant/appellant, who shall be referred to as the 1st defendant.
The antecedents of this appeal are as follows. On 13th June, 2012, the plaintiff/respondent/respondent, to be referred to as the plaintiff, sued Edward Kabu Otoo and two others in the High Court for declaration of title to land at Osu on which he built a house but could not register title documents given to him by the Osu Stool on account of prior registration by the said Edward Kabu Otoo. The 1st defendant herein, who initially was the 2nd defendant, was added to the suit because he also applied to register the land in his name at the Land Title Registry. In addition to the relief of declaration of title, the plaintiff endorsed his writ of summons with a prayer for the Lands Commission to be ordered to delete the records of the defendants and process his document. Accordingly, he made Lands Commission a nominal party as the 3rd defendant. In his defence filed on 17th October, 2012, the 1st defendant pleaded that the property in dispute belonged to Edward Kabu Otoo who acquired it from the Osu Stool before his death in 1944. The 1st defendant claimed that he was the late Edward Kabu Otoo’s customary successor so he counterclaimed for recovery of possession, general damages and perpetual injunction. In a reply the plaintiff pleaded that the 1st defendant, by not challenging him when he was developing the land, was estopped by the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence from claiming it. The Lands Commission filed a statement of defence and stated that they had no interest in the land and would abide by the decision of the court. As Edward Kabu Otoo had died long ago, his name was struck out and the case proceeded with only the present 1st defendant. The Lands Commission did not participate in the trial.
After a full trial, the High Court gave judgment on 14th April, 2015 against the 1st defendant but did not grant plaintiff his reliefs prayed for. In effect, plaintiff was only left in possession of the land. In the court’s opinion, while the plaintiff did not prove valid title to the land, the defendant was indeed guilty of acquiescence. The 1st defendant appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal and plaintiff also cross-appealed. As stated above, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal