NTEM vs. ANKWANDAH [1977]DLCA1371

Date	1977-06-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLCA1371

APALOO C.J.

LASSEY JA

FRANCOIS J.A.

E. D. KOM FOR THE APPELLANT.

DR. DATE-BAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1977]DLCA1371
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >NTEM <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ANKWANDAH <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1977]2 GLR 452<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
27 JUNE 1977<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

E. D. KOM FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

APALOO C.J., LASSEY AND FRANCOIS JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>On 1
September 1970, the respondent (whom I shall hereafter call the plaintiff)
acting by her husband, bought from the Akumajay stool, a piece of land
measuring 100 ft. by 70 ft. at a place called New Abossey Okai. On 27 October
of that year, the stool acting by certain named individuals executed a deed of
conveyance of the plot her favour. The stool entered into the covenants
normally implied by the use of the term “beneficial owner.” In compliance with
section 14 of the Stamp Act, 1965 (Act 311), the plaintiff had the conveyance duly
stamped. She also attempted to comply with section 24 (1) of the Land Registry
Act, 1962 (Act 122), by having the document registered. The registrar of lands
however declined to register the instrument because, Nii Ayikai III who
executed the deed with a number of the stool elders was then not gazetted. On
this account, the deed was unregistered and was produced in evidence as such.
This fact was stressed in the court below to buttress a submission that the
document was void, but that contention failed to impress the judge. As the law
stands at present, the registrar has no power to refuse to register the deed on
the ground said to have been stated by him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When the
plot was sold to the plaintiff, her vendors put her in possession. It was then
vacant and the plaintiff’s object was to erect a building on it. But before she
could put herself in funds to commence a building, she retained her possession
by weeding it. Early in 1973, she noticed that a caterpillar was clearing the
land. The appellant (hereinafter called the defendant) had sent the caterpillar
and himself came on the land. The plaintiff told the defendant that the land
was hers, and asked him to quit. He declined to do so. The plaintiff’s first
reaction was to lodge a complaint with the police. When the defendant was
invited there, he produced one Allotey as the person who sold him the land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant was, until December, 1967, a member of the Armed Forces. He rose to
the rank of a captain. He left the Army in December of that year and was
employed in the Water and Sewerage<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Corporation
and while in the employment of that corporation, did a course of a sort in
administration in the United States. At the date of this litigation in 1974, he
was employed as the managing director of The New Times Corporation. He said he
bought the land “from the Alloteys.” On 8 March 1973, four persons, namely, E.
K. Allotey, R.Q. Allotey, E. K. Allotey and C.A. Allotey, as vendors, conveyed
the land to him as purchaser in consideration of the sum of ¢700.00. The
vendors did not recite in the conveyance their root of title but they showed it
aliunde by a statutory declaration. Their title was based on a grant to their “Father”
by “Ayikai I, the late Akumajay Mantse about 100 years ago.” It was confirmed
by a deed of gift executed in their favour by Ayikai II on 30 December 1960.
Their deed was said to have been lost. Thus, while the plaintiff traced her
title immediately from the Akumajay stool, the defendant traced his mediately
from the same stool.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As I
said, the plaintiff at first sought the help of the police to eject the
defendant from the land. As obviously, the defendant raised title to the land
and asserted his right to its possession, the police were no help to her. So
she put her complaint in the hands of her solicitors—Messrs Atadika and
Fiadjoe. On 1 May 1973, they wrote to the defendant to warn him off the land.
They said the land belonged to the plaintiff and that she bought it from the
Akumajay stool in 1970. They gave the defendant seven days from the date of
that letter “to desist from any further acts of trespass” on the plaintiff’s
land. They pointed out, perhaps prophetically, that if he ignored that letter,
he did so at his own risk. The plaintiff’s solicitors also said, not quite
accurately, that the latter’s claim was “authenticated in the records of the
lands registry.” The plaintiff in fact sought to do so but the lands registrar
declined, as I am soon to show, wrongly, to register her deed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>