REPUBLIC vs. CHIEF LANDS OFFICER; EX PARTE ALLOTEY AND OTHERS [1980]DLHC2195

Date	1980-08-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC2195

CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

TSATSU TSIKATA FOR THE APPLICANT.

NO APPEARANCE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[1980]DLHC2195
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>CHIEF LANDS OFFICER; EX PARTE ALLOTEY AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 971<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:
22 AUGUST 1980<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">

TSATSU TSIKATA FOR THE APPLICANT. <o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT<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">

CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application for an order of mandamus to compel the Chief Lands Officer, the
head of a government department, to perform his statutory duty, by registering
a number of conveyances relating to land belonging to the Onamrokor Adain
family which the Chief Lands Officer had refused or failed to register.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicant is the joint head of the Onamrokor family. The other joint head is B.
A. Quarcoo. The appointment was one of the terms of settlement of a case
entitled Quarcoo v. Allotey which was before Abban J. and which was settled and
the terms of settlement incorporated into Abban J.’s judgment, dated 23
December 1974.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 18
March 1976, the caretaker of the applicant family wrote to the chief lands
officer, on behalf of the family informing him that signatories to conveyances
of the family’s land would be the applicant and five others whose names were
listed, but which excluded the name of the other joint head of family, B. A.
Quarcoo. The Chief Lands Officer replied that since the notice was not in terms
of the judgment of Abban J. incorporating the terms of the settlement, he would
not recognise documents which were signed outside the terms of the judgment.
True to his word, all the 164 documents in respect of conveyances made by the
family and which were presented for registration in compliance with section 24
(1) of the Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122), were not registered by the
respondent. The solicitors for the applicant in two separate letters dated 30
April 1976 and 24 January 1980 drew the attention of the respondent to his
statutory duty under section 3 of Act 122, but they fell on deaf ears. The
applicant was compelled to apply for this order to compel the respondent to
register the title deeds. The list of names of persons to whom conveyances have
been made has been exhibited to this application. There are 164 grantees.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Even
though the respondent filed an affidavit in opposition to the application, he
did not appear in court nor was he represented at the hearing of the
application. In the affidavit in opposition filed, the respondent contended
that by virtue of the consent judgment, the applicant is only a joint head of
family, and that persons entitled to execute the documents are the joint heads
with the consent and concurrence of the accredited elders of the family. The
respondent relied on a dispute between the two joint heads which culminated in
the judgment of Wiredu J., in suit No. 412/76 Quarcoo v. Allotey. The main
issue in that case was whether or not Quarcoo had been removed as joint head of
family. It was held that Quarcoo was still a joint head of family.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By this
judgment, the respondent is contending that the proper persons entitled to deal
with the Onamrokor Adain family lands are the said Quarcoo and Allotey acting
with the consent and concurrence of the elders of the family. The respondent is
also contending that, since there was a suit pending there was the possibility
of Quarcoo instituting contempt proceedings against him if he had not suspended
the registration pending the outcome of the suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent by his affidavit challenged the locus standi of the applicant; he
contended that the grantees, by conveyancing practice, should have applied for
registration, but there is no application from any of the grantees.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>