SAMUEL KAKRA MENSAH v. CHRISTOPHER KWABLA LIGBIDI

MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A:

In March 1997, our Supreme Court in a land mark decision in AMUZU VS. OKLIKAH [1998-99] SCGLR, 141, unanimously held in holding [1] that:

“The Land Registry Act, 1962 [Act 122] did not abolish the equitable doctrines of notice and fraud; neither did it confer on a registered instrument a state-guarantee title. Consequently, a later instrument [such as exhibit B in the instant case] could only obtain priority over an earlier one by registration under section 24 [1] of Act 122 if it was obtained without notice and fraud of the earlier unregistered instrument. Since, in the instant case, the plaintiff had actual notice that the land was in some way encumbered, he would be held to have constructive notice of the earlier grant to the defendant. The Court of Appeal erred in holding otherwise”.

In the words of Sophia Akuffo JSC;

“Although the need to be a bonafide purchase without notice is not expressly stipulated in Act 122, once it is accepted that the object of the Act is to afford and facilitate notice to the public of pre-existing interest in any piece of land, then, it can be validly argued that the objective is achieved when the purchaser has prior notice of such interest even if the instrument covering the interest is unregistered”.

This appeal is not about the Land Registry Act, 1962 [Act 122]. But the case referred to supra set the tone for the issue raised in this appeal which revolves around double allocation or sale of the disputed land to the respondent and the 1st appellant.

On 19-7-2010, the High Court, Tema, gave judgment for the plaintiff. The Court held that:

“Judgment is hereby entered for the plaintiff. It is hereby ordered that the 2nd defendant [TDC] issue a formal lease in respect of Plots No. RP/16A/157 and 158 to the plaintiff. The allocation of Plot No. 158 to the 1st defendant by the Nungua Traditional Council is hereby declared wrongful and the said allocation is hereby cancelled.

The 1st defendant is hereby ordered to remove his structure from Plot No. 157 [sic] at his own cost and vacate the said plot and give vacant possession to the plaintiff forthwith. The 1st defendant, his agents, servants and workers are hereby perpetually restrained from entering the said plot or doing anything whatsoever on the said plot. The 1st defendant and his workers or agents are permitted to enter the plot for the purpose of removing his structure.

Cost of GH¢5,000 for the plaintiff against 1st defendant.