July 26, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Pwamang JSC, with Chief Justice Anin Yeboah, Prof. N.A. Kotey, I.O. Tanko Amadu, and Prof. H.J.A.N. Mensa-Bonsu concurring, issued reasons for dismissing an application for certiorari brought by a party joined as the 4th defendant in High Court Labour Division suit LD/0986/20. The plaintiff (1st interested party) sought possession, injunction, and demolition relating to a 0.81-acre workplace at East Legon. The applicant argued that, because East Legon is a registration district under LI 1534, section 98 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) barred suit commencement until ADR under Act 798 was exhausted. Comparing section 98 to section 12(1) of PNDCL 152 and relying on Boyefio v NTHC, the Court held that section 98 applies only to disputes arising in the registration process, not general land litigation. The Court noted prohibition, not certiorari, would be the proper remedy if jurisdiction were impacted, and it dismissed the application.
PWAMANG JSC:-
On 26th July, 2022, we dismissed the applicant’s motion praying for certiorari to quash the ruling of the High Court, Labour Division, Accra dated 1st April, 2022 but reserved our full reasons to be given on 14th October, 2022 which we now do. The Applicant in the instant proceedings was, by an order of the court, joined to suit No. LD/0986/20 pending in the High Court, Labour Division, Accra, as 4th defendant for alleged acts of trespass to the workplace of the Plaintiff in that suit who is the 1st interested party herein. Of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the High Court, the following are relevant for purposes of these proceedings;
a.Recovery of possession from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants of all that parcel of land measuring an approximate area of 0.81 acre (workplace), less the portion of the workplace affected by the judgment in suit number FAL/301/2013.
b.An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants, their respective agents, assigns and representatives from interfering with the Plaintiff’s possession and use of the portion of the workplace which is not affected by the judgment in suit number FAL/301/2013.
c.An order directed at the 4th defendant to demolish the said high rise building located on a portion of the workplace not affected by the judgment, and to bring the said portion of the workplace to the state it was before the said construction works.
When the applicant was served with the processes, it entered conditional appearance and filed a defence. Thereafter, the Applicant filed a motion to strike out the action against it on the ground, that by virtue of Section 98 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036), the plaintiff’s action in the High Court against it was premature. The provision is as follows:
“An action concerning any land or interest in land in a registration district shall not be commenced in any court unless the procedures for resolution of disputes under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) have been exhausted”
The case of the Applicant is that where the land in dispute lies, being East Legon, Accra was declared a registration district by LI 1534. Therefore, the plaintiff could not commence an action in court concerning that land without first exhausting the procedures under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798). The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the motion, hence this application invoking our supervisory juris