HUGH KWATELAI QUARTEY-PAPAFIO vs. IBRAHIM SIBIE

The plaintiff commenced an action on 7 June 2021 claiming declaration of title, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction, and damages for trespass in respect of land. The defendant, after entering conditional appearance, applied to strike out the writ for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the land was situated in a registration district and that, by section 98(1) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036), the plaintiff ought first to have exhausted ADR procedures under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) before invoking the court’s jurisdiction. [Portion of judgment: “On 7th June 2021, the plaintiff issued a writ of summons against the defendant claiming the reliefs of declaration of title, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction, and damages for trespass. The defendant entered conditional appearance… seeking to strike out the writ of summons for want of jurisdiction pursuant to section 981 of the Land Act, 2020 Act 1036.”]

RULING Introduction On 7th June 2021, the plaintiff issued a writ of summons against the defendant claiming the reliefs of declaration of title, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction, and damages for trespass. The defendant entered conditional appearance to the writ and followed it up with the present application seeking to strike out the writ of summons for want of jurisdiction pursuant to section 98(1) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036). Summary of defendant/ applicant’s application It is the case of the defendant/ applicant that the land in dispute is situate in a registration district and by virtue of section 98(1) of Act 1036, the plaintiff should have first resorted to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) before proceeding to court. The defendant argues that there is no evidence that the plaintiff resorted to the ADR procedures under Act 798 before coming to court. Counsel for the defendant therefo.....