KASSER vs. RAZIEL CONSTRUCTION LTD [1993]DLCA754

Date	1993-03-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1993]DLCA754

LAMPTEY JA

ADJABENG JA

FORSTER JA

KWAKYE (WITH HIM ASARE DUA) FOR THE APPLICANT.

OWUSU YEBOAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1993]DLCA754
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">KASSER<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">RAZIEL CONSTRUCTION LTD<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1993-94] 1 GLR 241<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 11 March
1993<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWAKYE (WITH HIM ASARE DUA) FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

OWUSU YEBOAH FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

LAMPTEY, ADJABENG AND FORSTER JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF LAMPTEY JA<o:p></o:p>Delivered the ruling of the court. On 7 December 1992 we dismissed
the application of Patrick Moffact Kasser (hereinafter referred to as Kasser)
for a stay of execution of the judgment of the Circuit Court, Accra dated 13
October 1992 in favour of Raziel Construction Ltd (hereinafter referred to as
the company). We now give our reasons as follows:<o:p></o:p>Raziel Construction Ltd sued Patrick Moffact Kasser and claimed
recovery of possession of house No C 360/3 Ring Road Central, Accra. On 13
October 1992 the Circuit Court, Accra entered judgment for Raziel Construction
Ltd against Kasser. The Court made the following order: “The defendant [Kasser]
must therefore vacate and vacate forthwith to enable the plaintiffs enjoy the
fruits of their labour. The matter had dragged on for too long.”<o:p></o:p>Kasser was dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgment and appealed
to this court. He then applied to the Circuit Court, Accra for a stay of
execution of the judgment. The application was refused. In the circumstances,
Kasser repeated the application for a stay of execution of the judgment in this
court. The application was supported by an affidavit in which it was sought to
show that the appeal of Kasser against the judgment of the circuit court had a
good chance of success. The other ground in support of the application was that
Kasser would suffer greater hardship than the company if this application for
stay of execution was refused.<o:p></o:p>Before us, learned counsel for Kasser submitted that the judgment
could not be supported in law. First, he contended that the circuit court
lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaint of the company because the
Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDCL 152), s 12(1) had ousted the
jurisdiction of that court. Learned counsel for the company submitted that
PNDCL 152 did not apply to the case before the court. He pointed out that the
root of title of the company was a leased that was duly stamped and registered
as No 4557/86 in 1986. He stated that the area of Accra where the land in
dispute is situated was declared a compulsory registration area pursuant to
PNDCL 152 on 10 November 1990. In his view the registered title of the company
was not affected by the 10 November 1990 declaration.<o:p></o:p>We will deal first with the issue of jurisdiction. In support of
his application and for ease of reference Kasser attached to his notice of
motion, exhibit C bearing the heading “Compulsory Land Title Registration Accra
District 0.3.” This document spelt out the areas of Accra which formed the
subject matter of compulsory land registration. In our opinion, paragraph (2)
of exhibit C contained the answer to the submission of learned counsel for
Kasser. It reads:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“As a protection against unknown and clandestine dealings in land,
all previously registered deeds in the above areas are being replaced by Land
Cerfiticates (i.e. Certificates of Title) similar to those which are issued to
the registered holders of title in most Commonwealth and developing countries.”<o:p></o:p>It would be seen that deeds registered before the operative date
10 November 1990 were not required to be submitted for re-registration. The
company was under the new entitled to be issued with a certificate of title on
the land it duly registered in 1986. That land was sufficiently and clearly
identified by the site plan attached to the said lease. In our opinion a
dispute touching upon a pre-November 1990 duly registered land is one over
which the courts of the land has jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p><a name="_gjdgxs"></a>The applicant attached a lease
to his application. This lease on the face of it was duly registered in
February 1992, that is to say it was registered during the pendency of the
action before the trial court and certainly not registered before the write of
summons issued. It is now sought to show that because the applicant’s lease was
registered after November 1990 the fact of the registration of the other lease
ousted the jurisdiction of the circuit court. This argument is clearly and
plainly misconceived. The true position is that the court must look at the
dates on which the two rival documents were each duly registered, and determine
whether or not it had jurisdiction. When this simple test is applied to the
facts of this case it will be seen that the Circuit Court, Accra had
jurisdiction. We find that that ground in support of the application fails. We
do not at this stage find it necessary to discuss the evidential value of the
leases put forward by each of the parties. Su</main>