MIREKU VS. AMAR AND ANOTHER [1993]DLCA5045

Date	1993-12-09
Suit No.	[1992 – 1993] 3 G B R 1094 – 1101 C.A
Citation No.	[1993]DLCA5045

ESSIEM JA

ADJABENG JA

LUTTERODT JA

AFARI YEBOAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1993]DLCA5045
																																						<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" >MIREKU<o:p></o:p>VS.<o:p></o:p>AMAR AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL]<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">

[1992 – 1993] 3 G B R 1094 – 1101
C.A&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 9 DECEMBER 1993<o:p></o:p>

NO
APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

ESSIEM
JA, ADJABENG JA, LUTTERODT JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>ESSIEM JA. <o:p></o:p>The
claim before the High Court was for orders that:<o:p></o:p>“1. On the death intestate of Ruth
Sackiley Sackey on 5 August 1962, house No C345/4 became family property.<o:p></o:p>2. The late Emmanuel Tetteh Addy, as customary
successor, has no power to sell the family property without the consent of the
family.<o:p></o:p>3. The letters of administration
obtained on 17 July 1990 by late Emmanuel Tetteh Addy was void.<o:p></o:p>4. The alleged transfer to the
defendant of house No C345/4 by late Emmanuel Tetteh Addy be rescinded as being
void.”<o:p></o:p>Reading
through the statement of claim and the statement of defence, one is left in no
doubt that this suit involves succession and the issue whether house No C345/4
is family property.<o:p></o:p>The
statement of claim also alleged fraud with particulars. Before summons for
directions could be taken, the defendant, now the appellant before this court,
moved the court for an order to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim for want of
jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>It
was deposed in the supporting affidavit that Kokomlemle, where the land in
dispute is situate, is a registration area; that the plaintiffs should not have
commenced the action in the High Court and that the High Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs' writ. The respondents also contended
that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.<o:p></o:p>In
her ruling the presiding judge refused to grant the motion. She held inter
alia:<o:p></o:p>“It is clear from the preamble to
PNDCL 152 that the Law was promulgated to settle disputes about title and to
encourage persons to have their simple claims to land settled by the Land Title
Adjudicating Committee and not to drag every simple dispute into court. A full
reading of the preamble shows clearly the extent of the Law. I find that these
claims brought by the plaintiffs are such as cannot properly be settled by the
committee without resort to our courts even after adjudication by the said
committee...”<o:p></o:p>The
learned trial judge accordingly refused the application hence this appeal.<o:p></o:p>Learned
counsel for the appellant, Mr Afari Yeboah, urged that the issue was whether
the High Court should exercise jurisdiction in a claim to title to land where
the land was situated in a registration district under PNDCL 152. He submitted
further that in view of section 12 of PNDCL 152, the Land Title Adjudicating
Committee had jurisdiction to deal with the claim before the court and that
since the claim for letters of administration concerned land, the Adjudicating
Committee had jurisdiction under section 12 of PNDCL 152 to deal with the
claim. He submitted finally that the paramount claim of the plaintiffs was a
claim to land or interest in land. The other reliefs being incidental to the
paramount claim, they could be dealt with by the Land Title Adjudicating
Committee.<o:p></o:p>I
have considered these points and I am of the opinion that since the
adjudicating bodies are created by statute, one has to go to that statute to
determine its effect. The relevant statute here is Land Title Registration Law
1986 (PNDCL 152). Section 12 deals with stay of proceedings in land suits, and
it is as follows:<o:p></o:p>“12(1) No action concerning any land
or interest therein in a registration district shall be commenced in any Court
until the procedures for settling disputes under this Law have been exhausted.<o:p></o:p>(2) Where at the time of the
publication of a notice under section 11 of this Law an action or proceding
concerning any land or interest therein in a registration district referred to
in the notice is pending in any Court or before the Stool Lands Boundaries
Settlement Commission or the Stool Lands Boundary Appeal Tribunal, any claim
under this Law in respect of the same land or interest shall be noted by the
Land Registrar but no further action shall be taken by him on such claim until
the matter is determined by the Court...”<o:p></o:p>However,
section 11 of PNDCL 152 is of crucial importance. It is as follows:<o:p></o:p>"Subject to section 13 of this
Law, upon the declaration of a registration district the Chief Registrar shall,
within fourteen days of the declaration, issue in respect of that district a
notice in which he shall –<o:p></o:p>(a) specify the situation
and limits of the registration district;<o:p></o:p>(b) require any person who
claims to be the proprietor of any land or of any interest in any land within the
registration district to make a claim thereto either in person or by an agent
within such period an</main>