REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE LANDS COMMISSION (VANDERPUYE ORGLE ESTATES LTD, INTERESTED PARTY) [1996]DLCA604

REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE LANDS COMMISSION (VANDERPUYE ORGLE ESTA... [1996]DLCA604

Date	1996-01-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1996]DLCA604

WOOD JA

BROBBEY JA

BADDOO JA

FELIX NYALETEY STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT.

NII APONSAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1996]DLCA604
																																						<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">REPUBLIC<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">HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE LANDS COMMISSION (VANDERPUYE ORGLE
ESTATES LTD, INTERESTED PARTY)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1995-96] 1 GLR 208<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: 18
JANUARY 1996<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>FELIX NYALETEY, STATE ATTORNEY, 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">

NII APONSAH FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

WOOD, BROBBEY AND BADDOO JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF WOOD JA.<o:p></o:p>By an indenture dated 28 September 1973 and registered as LR No
374/78, the respondent in this appeal acquired a leasehold interest in a large
tract of the James Town stool land on the Winneba Road known as Korkor Dzor.
The grant was made by Nii Adja Kwao II in his capacity as the James Town Mantse
and with the consent and concurrence of the accredited elders. This grant also
received the concurrence of the appellant, the body statutorily empowered to
give due recognition to all grants of stool lands and record them in its books.<o:p></o:p>Unfortunately, the said chief was subsequently destooled in the
year 1974. This was after a declaration by the chieftaincy tribunal that his
enstoolment was null and void. In spite of the valuable consideration the
respondent had already paid to the stool, it however renegotiated the grant
with the stool and provided yet another valuable consideration.<o:p></o:p>When the appellant however threatened to withdraw the concurrence
it had earlier granted by expunging the said lease from its records, and indeed
further refused to recognise a sublease made by the respondent, it was
compelled to apply to the High Court for an order of mandamus directing the
appellant to restore to its property records the deed of lease in question. The
learned trial judge granted the order and the appellant who was dissatisfied
with the decision appealed to this court on three grounds.<o:p></o:p>At the hearing of the appeal, however, counsel elected to argue
only one ground—ground (a) and abandoned the others. That ground reads: “The
learned High Court judge misdirected himself on the effect of the chieftaincy
tribunal of the National House of Chiefs declaring Nii Adja Kwao never to have
been a chief of James Town.” The argument in support of this ground is simple.
It was urged upon us that the judgment of the National House of Chiefs which
was referred to by the learned trial judge in his judgment, declared the
election and enstoolment of Nii Adja Kwao II a complete nullity, The argument
then was that it followed that all dispositions of stool lands made by him in
his purported capacity as James Town Mantse are accordingly null and void,
since on the authority of the time honoured principles stated in: MacFoy v
United Africa Co Ltd [1962] AC 152, PC and Mosi v Bagyina [1963] 1 GLR 337, SC,
one cannot build or found anything valid on nothing, or a nullity. By this
argument, counsel invited us to draw a sharp distinction between this instant
case where the very basis of the chief’s position is declared null and void and
those cases where the original position is affirmed but he is subsequently
destooled or removed on stated grounds. The latter, it was urged would not
render earlier dispositions, ie those made during his tenure of office,
invalid, whereas in the former instances, as in this present case, all such
grants or dispositions would become complete nullities.<o:p></o:p>The respondent’s counsel advanced two reasons why the appeal must
fail. First he argued that the law protects innocent third parties who acquire
rights from chiefs whose election and enstoolments are subsequently declared
nullities. This, in my view, adequately answers the question raised by this
appeal. I shall deal with it in depth presently. The second, in my view, ought
to fall. The reason is that that issue did not arise and there were no facts in
support of them. It was not raised either on the affidavits or at the hearing.
It is this that the (the respondent) is guilty of laches and acquiescence.<o:p></o:p>In my view then, the question raised by this appeal is this: What
happens to a valid disposition made by a chief whose nomination, election and
installation is subsequent to the disposition, declared a complete nullity?
Would this declaration consequently nullify in toto such a grant? It is to the
learned trial judge’s credit that he identified this as the main bone of
contention between the parties. His answer which I, indeed, affirm by this
appeal was couched in the following manner:<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">“I believe that purchasers or innocent third parties ought to find
protection under the law in such situations and certainly a court of equity
would never sanction or support the respondent’s contention because the
confusion and absurdity arising therefrom can very well be imagined.”<o:p></o:p>In this instant case, the respondent demonstrated by its</main>