Abusuapanyin Osafo Manu (for himself and on behalf of the Agona Family of Assin Bosomadwe) v Kweku Gyapong & Kwame Ankomahene
Circuit Court
The plaintiff, suing as the head of the Agona family of Assin Bosomadwe, sought a declaration of title to two plots of land at Assin Bosomadwe and consequential reliefs including recovery of possession, injunction and damages for trespass. The plaintiff contended that the disputed land originally belonged to the Agona family and had been granted to the defendants’ family merely for farming purposes, subject to reclamation whenever the family required it for development. The defendants denied the claim and asserted that their ancestors were originally granted the land for farming but that the land was subsequently gifted to their family by the chief of the town after their ancestors assisted in a war. They maintained that their family had since been the lawful owners of the land and had exercised long possession over it. The court held that the burden of proof lay on the plaintiff who sought a declaration of title. The court found that the evidence established that the land had been gifted to the defendants’ family and that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the land had been validly granted back to the plaintiff’s family or the chief. The plaintiff therefore failed to establish his claim to title. The action was dismissed with costs.
Agnes Ahadzi & Pioneer Mall Ltd v Boye Sowah (Substituted by Samuel Nortey) & Others
Supreme Court
The plaintiffs claimed title to land at Okpoi-Gonno in Accra based on a customary grant from the Nungua Stool which had been documented and registered under the Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDCL 152). The defendants contended that the land formed part of Kle Musum Quarter land of Teshie and relied on earlier judgments and a statutory declaration to support their claim. The High Court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision on the ground that a previous High Court judgment had declared the land to belong to Kle Musum Quarter. On further appeal, the Supreme Court held that the earlier judgment relied upon by the defendants did not cover the land in dispute and therefore could not operate as res judicata. The Court further held that the defendants had failed to prove that the disputed land formed part of Kle Musum Quarter lands. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside, and the decision of the High Court was restored with a modification to the damages awarded.
Emmanuel Ritalford Yaw Opare (suing as Principal Elder of Nana Annor Kwesi Family) v Nana Okatakyie Bekoe II & Wamp Investments Ltd
High Court
The plaintiff brought an action seeking declarations of title to family land at Obosomase-Pongpong in the Akuapem North District and orders restraining the defendants from interfering with the land. The plaintiff alleged that the land belonged to his family by first discovery and that the defendants had fraudulently alienated portions of the land to the second defendant through deeds of lease. The defendants failed to enter appearance or participate in the proceedings. The court held that notwithstanding the absence of the defendants, the burden remained on the plaintiff to prove his claim. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient traditional or documentary evidence establishing the root of title to the disputed land. Consequently the claim for declaration of title and trespass failed and the action was dismissed.
Richard Berko Bempong v Saliu Ibrahim
High Court
The plaintiff brought an action seeking a declaration of title to land measuring approximately 2.73 acres situated at Bomfa in the Juaben District of the Ashanti Region. The plaintiff also sought recovery of a portion of the land allegedly trespassed upon by the defendant, damages for trespass and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from further interference with the land. The plaintiff’s case was that he had acquired the land through transfers from individuals who owned adjoining parcels of land and subsequently obtained a lease over the entire land from the Bomfa Stool, the allodial owners of the land. He contended that he took possession of the land and exercised acts of ownership over it. The defendant, although served with the writ of summons and statement of claim, failed to enter appearance, file a statement of defence or participate in the proceedings. The court therefore proceeded with the trial and required the plaintiff to prove his claim. The court held that although a statutory declaration could not convey an interest in land, the lease executed by the Bomfa Stool in favour of the plaintiff constituted a valid root of title. The court therefore declared title in favour of the plaintiff, ordered recovery of the trespassed portion of the land and awarded damages for trespass.
J.C.K. Hayfron and Mrs. Wilhelmina Marteko Sackey (suing as administrators of the Estate of the late Robert Kwesi Hayfron) v Godwin Anyiogu and Janet Amuah
High Court
The plaintiffs, as administrators of the estate of the late Robert Kwesi Hayfron, brought an action seeking a declaration that the deceased was the legal and beneficial owner of a parcel of land at McCarthy Hill, Accra, together with damages for trespass and an order of perpetual injunction against the defendants. The plaintiffs contended that the deceased acquired the land by an indenture dated 27 September 1969 and had taken possession of it before his death. The defendants denied the claim and asserted that the first defendant had acquired the land in 1996 from the Oblogo Lamptey family and had subsequently regularised the title through the Gbawe Kwatei family, from whom he obtained a fresh indenture in 2009. The first defendant further contended that he had been in long and peaceful possession of the land and had subsequently sold part of it to the second defendant. A composite survey plan ordered by the court revealed that the land described in the plaintiffs’ indenture was different from the land in dispute. The court therefore held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the identity of the land they claimed and had not discharged the burden of proof required in an action for declaration of title. The plaintiffs’ claim was accordingly dismissed.
Nii Kofi Akrashie II (Chief of Oshiyie, suing for and on behalf of the Oshiyie Stool) v Jobbies Limited, Ga South Municipal Assembly and Lands Commission
High Court
The plaintiff, the chief of Oshiyie suing for and on behalf of the Oshiyie Stool, brought an action against the defendants seeking a declaration of title to land at Oshiyie measuring approximately 1.78 acres and the cancellation of a land title certificate issued to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff contended that the land formed part of Oshiyie stool lands and that the 1st defendant had fraudulently procured registration through a grantor who lacked capacity to alienate the land. The defendants failed to participate in the trial despite entering appearance and being served with hearing notices. The court held that the plaintiff had established his title and that the registration obtained by the 1st defendant was procured through fraud and collusion. The court therefore set aside the land title certificate and ordered the Lands Commission to delete the registration from its records.
Alice Constance Naana Darko v Dr. Sackey
District Court
The Plaintiff claimed ownership of land at Daakye, Akropong-Akuapem based on a customary gift allegedly made to her by the Asona family in 2018. She sought a declaration of title, recovery of possession, injunction, and damages for trespass against the Defendant. The Defendant contended that the land had already been sold to his predecessor in title in 2001 and later conveyed to him in 2012. The court held that the Defendant proved a prior grant of the land, and applying the principle of nemo dat quod non habet, the family lacked the capacity to gift the land to the Plaintiff thereafter. The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.
Dr Samuel Boateng Asamoah v Sulley Mohammed
High Court
The plaintiff sought declaration of title, eviction, perpetual injunction and damages for trespass over land at Pantang in the Greater Accra Region, relying on an alleged grant from Charles Kwesi Gyasi and a Land Title Certificate issued in 2015. The defendant denied the claim and counterclaimed that he had earlier purchased the land from the same grantor, paid consideration and constructed a two-storey building on the property. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his acquisition of the land and failed to call his grantor as a material witness. The court held that the defendant’s evidence of possession and development of the land was more credible. Applying the equitable doctrine of part performance, the court declared the defendant the owner of the land, cancelled the plaintiff’s Land Title Certificate for fraud and granted perpetual injunction in favour of the defendant.
Charles Yarnie, Christiana Dede Yarnie & Grace Dede Yarnie v Solomon Nii Dodoo Nyankuao & Nii Lantei Wingah (Gyasetɛ)
High Court
The plaintiffs sought declaration of title, perpetual injunction and damages for trespass over land forming part of the Amanfro family land. They claimed their family was the allodial owner and had exercised acts of possession over the land for many years. The defendants entered appearance but failed to file a defence, leading to interlocutory judgment in default of defence. The court held that the plaintiffs had proved their root of title and acts of possession on the balance of probabilities and entered judgment in their favour, granting declaration of title, perpetual injunction, damages for trespass of GH¢5,000 and costs of GH¢10,000.
Cyril Yeboah v Awudu Yakubu & Anor
High Court
The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction, damages for trespass and costs in respect of a parcel of land at Nsutam along the Accra–Kumasi highway. The plaintiff’s case was that he acquired the land in 2002 from Alfred Kudjo Mensah and had been in uninterrupted possession for over twenty years during which he demolished an uncompleted structure on the land, erected demarcation pillars, deposited building materials and cultivated crops. He alleged that the defendants encroached on portions of the land by extending their boundaries and constructing on the land. The defendants denied the claim and contended that the disputed land formed part of State land compulsorily acquired by the Government of Ghana under Certificate of Title No. 894/59 dated 8 October 1959. They further argued that the plaintiff lacked the capacity to institute the action since the land belonged to the State. A composite site plan prepared by the Lands Commission revealed that the boundaries claimed by the defendants on the ground overlapped the plaintiff’s land. The court held that the plaintiff had established his root of title through the Nsutam Stool acting through the Nsutam Town Development Committee and had been in possession of the land for over twenty years. The court further held that the defendants had enlarged their boundaries beyond their respective allocations and had thereby encroached on the plaintiff’s land. The court rejected the defendants’ contention that the plaintiff lacked capacity and held that the plaintiff was entitled to protect his interest in the land. Judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiff with declaration of title, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction and damages for trespass.
Stephen Abiiro Amokasa v Adombila Asakootei & Solomon Atiah
District Court
The plaintiff brought an action for declaration of title, perpetual injunction, recovery of possession and demolition of structures in respect of a parcel of land at Zuarungu Residential Area. The plaintiff contended that the land had been sold to him in 2002 by the 1st defendant or his father and that he had entered into possession and constructed buildings on part of the land. In 2019 the 2nd defendant entered onto a portion of the land and began construction, claiming that he had purchased that portion from the 1st defendant’s father. The court held that the land in dispute formed part of the land earlier sold to the plaintiff in 2002. Applying the nemo dat quod non habet principle, the court held that the 1st defendant or his father could not validly convey the same land again to the 2nd defendant in 2019. The plaintiff was declared owner of the land and granted recovery of possession and perpetual injunction. The plaintiff’s claim for demolition of the structures was dismissed because demolition orders are not sanctioned by the rules of court. The plaintiff’s registered lease was also set aside as invalid and the Lands Commission was ordered to expunge the registration.
Iddrisu Tifuuro Tatali v Alhaji Saaka Yakubu
Supreme Court
he appellant sought a declaration of title over family land near Wa Polytechnic, contending that the respondent’s ancestor had only been granted the land for farming. The High Court decreed title in favour of the appellant but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision. On further appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in interfering with findings of fact made by the trial court and in raising the issue of identity of land which had not been disputed. The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision and restored the judgment of the High Court granting title to the appellant’s family.
AGBETI AND ANOTHER V ERICSSON AB GHANA BRANCH
Court of Appeal
Employment Law — Termination simpliciter — Collective Bargaining Agreement — Payment in lieu of notice — Requirement to give reasons — Procedural fairness — Disciplinary proceedings — Appeal — Grounds of appeal — Particulars of error of law — Rule 8 of CI 19. The appellants, employees of the respondent, participated in the organisation of a company-related event after which an internal complaint was made alleging breaches of sourcing procedures. An internal investigation recommended disciplinary hearings, but before the hearing concluded, the appellants sought judicial review to stop the disciplinary process; both applications were dismissed. While the disciplinary process was pending, the respondent terminated their employment and paid them three months’ salary in lieu of notice in accordance with their employment contracts and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The appellants sued in the High Court alleging unlawful and discriminatory termination and breach of natural justice. The High Court held that although the termination was lawful, the employer’s prior conduct violated natural justice and awarded damages. On appeal, the respondent objected to several grounds of appeal as vague and argumentative under Rule 8(4)-(6) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (CI 19). The Court of Appeal upheld the objection and struck out grounds II, III and IV, leaving only the ground that the judgment was against the weight of evidence for determination. After reviewing the record, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the respondent lawfully terminated the employment pursuant to the contractual terms, which allowed termination without assigning reasons upon payment of salary in lieu of notice. There was no evidence that the termination was based on misconduct or the investigative report. Consequently, the award of damages for breach of natural justice was set aside as unwarranted. Held: 1. Grounds II, III and IV of the appeal, together with their particulars, were struck out for non-compliance with Rule 8(4)-(6) of CI 19. 2. Termination pursuant to contractual notice provisions, without assigning reasons, is lawful where the contract and CBA so provide. 3. The respondent’s termination of the appellants' employment was lawful. 4. The High Court’s award of damages for alleged discriminatory conduct and breach of natural justice was erroneous and unwarranted and is therefore set aside. 5. Subject to this variation, the judgment of the High Court is affirmed. 6. Appeal dismissed
Dorothy Eboe Arthur and Naa Ohimea Eboe Arthur (suing as Administrators of the Estate of the Late Ahia Eboe-Arthur) v International Central Gospel Church
High Court
The plaintiffs, suing as administrators of the estate of the late Ahia Eboe-Arthur, brought an action against the defendant church seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction in respect of land at Weija in Accra, relying on a 1978 lease granted by the Weija Stool. The defendant claimed title through a purchase from a private vendor and a subsequent lease from the Weija Stool. A composite plan prepared by the Lands Commission revealed that only a small portion of the defendant’s land overlapped with the land registered in the name of the deceased. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the entire land claimed corresponded with the land described in their lease and were therefore entitled only to the overlapping portion. Judgment was entered in favour of the defendant in respect of the remaining portion of the land, with a perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the defendant’s possession of that portion. No order as to costs was made.
Abraham Akotuah Fianko (Deceased) (Substituted with Nathaniel Kojo Fianko), Grace Osaebea Fianko and Tabitha Badake v Land Title Registry, Accra and Mathew Akotua Addo
High Court
The plaintiffs, administrators and beneficiaries of the estate of the late Nathaniel Fianko Akotuah, brought an action seeking declaration of title, cancellation of land registration and damages on the basis that a Supreme Court judgment confirming title in favour of the defendant’s father had been obtained by fraud. The court held that fraud had not been proved and that the plaintiffs were estopped from relitigating the ownership of the property since the matter had already been conclusively determined by the courts up to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed. The defendant’s counterclaim for recovery of possession was also dismissed since the earlier Supreme Court judgment had not granted such relief.
The Commissioner, CHRAJ v The Executive Secretary, Lands Commission
High Court
The Commissioner of CHRAJ applied to the High Court to enforce a decision made by CHRAJ directing the Lands Commission to allocate a replacement industrial plot to Safari Motor Works after the Commission had re-entered land previously allocated to the company and reallocated it to another entity. The Lands Commission challenged the jurisdiction of both CHRAJ and the High Court to deal with the dispute. The court held that the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 140 of the 1992 Constitution to determine civil matters and enforce fundamental human rights. The court further held that CHRAJ, established under Articles 216–218 of the Constitution and Act 456, has the authority to investigate complaints of administrative injustice and to bring proceedings before the High Court to enforce its decisions. The court found that the land had been validly allocated to Safari Motor Works and that the Lands Commission’s re-entry and reallocation were unfair and unjustified. However, instead of ordering the allocation of a replacement plot as requested, the court held that compensatory damages were more appropriate and ordered the Lands Commission to refund the cost of the land, reclamation works, fencing, survey and related expenses with interest calculated from July 1990 at the prevailing bank rate.
DANIEL MOORE APRAKUSU V MINERALS COMMISSION
Court of Appeal
Labour Law — Unfair Termination — Failure to Follow Due Process — Audi Alteram Partem — Remedies under Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) — Reinstatement — Compensation — Costs The Appellant, the Internal Auditor of the Minerals Commission, was invited before a Special Fact‑Finding Committee investigating accounting practices. He was not charged with any misconduct, issued a query, or afforded an opportunity to respond to any allegations. Following his appearance before the Committee, his appointment was terminated on the grounds that his conduct did not meet the required standards of efficiency and integrity. The National Labour Commission (NLC) found the termination unfair, holding that the employer failed to comply with the audi alteram partem rule and the Commission’s own disciplinary procedures. The NLC awarded compensation, notice pay, and costs, but declined reinstatement. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of unfair termination, holding that the proceedings before the Special Committee were investigative, not disciplinary, and that the Appellant was never heard before an adverse conclusion was drawn against him. The Court held that reinstatement had become impracticable due to the passage of time between termination and adjudication, but revised the compensation upwards to 24 months of the Appellant’s basic salary at the current Head of Audit rate, and increased costs to GH¢10,000. The appeal thus succeeded in part.
Ebusuapanyin Kweku Assafuah, Anthony Appiah & Rev. John Adjei v The Regional Secretary, Land Commission Secretariat, Sekondi & Rev. Arhin Davies
Supreme Court
The plaintiffs commenced an action seeking, among other reliefs, an order restraining the Lands Commission from deleting leases made within sectors of the West Anaji Planning Scheme and damages against the second defendant. The second defendant denied the claim and counterclaimed for declaration of title, recovery of possession, damages for trespass and perpetual injunction. The defendant argued that the land had previously been litigated in earlier proceedings in which the plaintiffs’ predecessor had lost in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The High Court upheld the plea of res judicata and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision. On further appeal, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs were estopped from reopening issues that had already been determined in earlier litigation and that public policy required that litigation must come to an end. The court further held that the identity of the land had already been determined in the previous litigation and that the attempt to relitigate the dispute constituted an abuse of the judicial process. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Mrs. Sarah Ankomah Kyei v The Regional Lands Officer & Nii Moi Morton
Court of Appeal
The appellant commenced an action in the High Court claiming a declaration that by virtue of her registered deed No. 3335/1984 she was the owner of land at Asabahan and sought an order directing the Regional Lands Officer to expunge subsequent registrations affecting the land. The second respondent denied the claim and counterclaimed, asserting title to the land through a lease granted by the Akramanaa family of Ngleshie Amanfrom and subsequent subdivision and registration. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s claim and entered judgment for the second respondent on his counterclaim. On appeal, the appellant relied mainly on the omnibus ground that the judgment was against the weight of evidence and also filed additional grounds of appeal outside the statutory period without leave. The Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to establish her root of title and possession and also failed to demonstrate any error in the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence. The court further held that the additional grounds of appeal filed outside the statutory time without leave were incompetent. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Charles Bugyie Debrah and Michael Appiah v Boateng Owusu Ansah
Circuit Court
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title to land at Ablekuma, damages for trespass and a perpetual injunction. The defendant denied the claim and counterclaimed for declaration of title, injunction, demolition of structures and damages for trespass. A court-ordered composite survey plan revealed that the lands described in the parties’ documents and site plans did not correspond with the land pointed out on the ground. The court held that both parties failed to establish with certainty the identity and boundaries of the land claimed. The court also rejected the defendant’s deed of assignment because it was unstamped and therefore inadmissible. Consequently, both the plaintiffs’ claim and the defendant’s counterclaim were dismissed. No order as to costs was made.