ARMAH vs. LANDS COMMISSION, ACCRA AND OTHERS [1978]DLHC1131

Date	1978-02-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1978]DLHC1131

AMPIAH J.

LAMPTEY FOR THE APPLICANT.

GOODHEAD FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[1978]DLHC1131
																																						<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" >ARMAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>LANDS COMMISSION, ACCRA AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1979] GLR 79<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:
2 FEBRUARY 1978<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">

LAMPTEY FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

AMPIAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff-applicant seeks by this application an order of interim injunction to
restrain the second and third defendants-respondents herein, their agents,
servants or workmen or both from entering the land in dispute for any purpose
whatsoever during the pendency of this suit and until the final hearing and
determination thereof.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By a deed
of conveyance dated 21 May 1958, duly stamped and registered as No. 1494/1958
with the deeds registry and tendered as exhibit 1 in this application, the
applicant became the absolute owner of the land, the subject-matter in dispute.
By an executive instrument, E.I. 85, issued in 1968, the applicant’s said piece
of land together with other pieces of land was compulsorily acquired by the
government for the purpose of a new cemetery for Accra-Odorkor. The land became
thus vested in the Lands Commission, the first defendant in this case, for the
intended purpose said to be in the public interest. The land thus acquired was
however not used for the intended new cemetery, rather the Lands Commissioner
in the exercise of the powers vested in him under the provisions of the State
Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125), purported to lease a portion of the acquired land to
the second and third defendants, the respondents herein. The land purportedly
leased to the respondents included the whole of the applicant’s land. The lease
which was dated 19 January 1976 was registered as No. 602/1976 with the deeds
registry. The respondents on acquiring the land started building operations on
the land. It was these activities on the land which sparked off this
litigation.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
the contention of the applicant that such grant to the respondents by the first
defendant was an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights. Mr.
Lamptey, counsel for the applicant, contended that the government, having
failed to use the land for the purpose for which it had been acquired, should
have in accordance with the laws of this country given the applicant the first
option to re-acquire her land and that it was wrong to give her land to the
respondents for purposes which were different from those stated in the
executive instrument and in any case for purposes which were neither for the
public nor were in the interest of the public.<o:p></o:p>While
such issues pend for determination it would be unfair for the respondents to
carry on with building activities on the land. Such activities, counsel
submitted, were likely to change the nature of the land. Counsel further
submitted that even though the applicant may be comparably poorer than the
respondents, she was capable of using her land for purposes within her
capabilities and that her financial position should not be used as a basis for
breaching her fundamental rights.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is
in fact no dispute as to the previous ownership of the land. Although the
respondents and the first defendant admit that at one time or another the
applicant was the owner of the land in dispute, they contended that such right
was taken away by executive instrument No. 85 of 1968 which vested the land in
dispute, together with other lands, in the state under the State Lands Act, 1962
(Act 125). Consequently the state then as owner of the land was the proper
person to dispose of the land. Mr. Goodhead, counsel for the respondents,
contended that the respondents were properly on the land by virtue of the lease
granted to them and duly registered as No. 602/1976. All that the applicant was
entitled to was compensation and she could not interfere with the activities of
the respondents on the land. The granting of the application, counsel
submitted, would cause irreparable damage to the respondents and in terms of
inconvenience, it was the respondents who would stand to suffer should the
application be granted; the applicant could be adequately compensated should
she succeed in her claim.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I should
state that apart from the executive instrument No. 85 of 1968, the court has
not been told of any other instrument acquiring the land for any purpose other
than for a new cemetery. I must </main>