OCANSEY vs. DJANIE AND LAND COMMISSION [2000]DLCA6548

Date	2000-07-20
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEA1 NO. 35/99.
Citation No.	[2000]DLCA6548

BENIN J.A. (PRESIDING)

TWUMASI J.A.

FARKYE J.A

[2000]DLCA6548
																																						<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" >OCANSEY<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DJANIE AND LAND COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEA1 NO. 35/99.&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
20TH JULY, 2000.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 0in 0in">

CORAM:&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;&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>

</div>TWUMASI,
J.A.:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is an appeal from the judgment of the
Circuit Court; Accra delivered on 14th January 1999. The appellant purchased a
piece of land from the chief of Okponglo sometime in 1992. The evidence showed
that in exercise of its executive powers the Government of the Gold Coast (as
it then was) had already compulsorily acquired large tract of land engulfing
this parcel of land purchased by the appellant. <o:p></o:p>Pursuant to the said
acquisition the Lands Commission granted the respondent herein a lease of a
portion of the land for residential purposes because it turned out that the
project for which the government acquired the land could not materialise.
However, in the supervening period the Land Registry had apparently due to
oversight or call it a mistake which that institution in fact admitted at the
trial issued title certificate to the appellant in respect of the sale
transaction concluded between him and the chief of Okponglo.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Lands Commission accordingly applied to
the Court for and was granted an order for joinder constituting it as co-defendant
in an action in which the respondent sued the man to whom the Land Commission
granted the lease. The Land Commission as co-defendant counter-claimed for an
order directing the Chief Registrar of Lands to rectify the register by the
cancellation of the respondent’s title certificate, declaration of title and
damages for trespass. The respondent had by his indorsement on the writ of
summons laid claim for (1) a declaration of title, recovery of possession,
perpetual injunction and ¢2 million damages for trespass. <o:p></o:p>The learned trial judge
made the following explicit findings of fact:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(a) That the land in dispute fell within the
acquisition area. <o:p></o:p>(b) The alleged grant by
the chief of Okponglo to the respondent was unlawful and void.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(c) The title certificate issued to the
respondent by the Land Title Registry was in error and consequently void. <o:p></o:p>He accordingly dismissed
the respondent’s action and entered judgment for the defendant (the lessee of
the Lands Commission) respondent herein, but denied him the claim for damages
for trespass. On the 16th February, 1999 the respondent filed notice of his
intention to contend that the decision of the court below be varied by entering
judgment in his favour for damages and costs for the relief which the learned
trial judge declined. The appellant filed no less than fourteen grounds of
appeal but only six of them were argued, thus inferentially abandoning those
not canvassed before this court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Counsel began with additional ground (1)
impeaching the alteration of Certificate of Title No.404/44. Counsel submitted
that the learned trial judge effected the amendment suo motu but upon reading
the record of appeal I found abundant evidence that a formal application for
the amendment was made and arguments canvassed before the trial judge, after he
had admirably considered the authorities including the case of Yeboah vrs
Bofour (1971) 2 GLR.199 C.A. and Order 28 of LN.140A and delivered a sound
ruling on the application. I find no merit in additional grounds (1) and (2).
Ground 3 of the grounds of appeal in essence accused the trial Judge of suo
motu setting aside the respondent’s certificate of title to the disputed land
on grounds of mistake when, as counsel put it, the respondent and co-respondent
had based their case on fraud. In the first place there was ample evidence on
record from which allegation of mistake or inadvertence could be inferred from
the conduct and omissions of the Land Registry. With regard to fraud, the
appellant undeniably made allegations of fraud or dishonesty against the
respondent and accused him of misconduct in the procurement of land
registration certificate through lies and distorted facts in certain
correspondence. It seems to me legitimate that the learned trial judge dealt
adequately with fraudulent registration. <o:p></o:p>On the submission that the
respondent's title was indefeasible and that the learned trial judge erred in
declaring it void it is sufficient to refer to section 122(1) of the Land Title
Registration Law 1985 (PNDCL.152). That section provides that: —<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“122 (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this
section the court may in its discretion, order the rectification of the land
register by directing that any registration be cancelled or amended where it is
satisfied that such registration has been obtained, made or committed by fraud
or mistake.<o:p></o:p>Subsection (2) is
inapplicable to this case and I need not quote it. This ground of appeal also
fails. The next important issue to deal with relates to the location of the
disputed land. The learned trial judge made explicit finding that the land fell
within the acquisition area and this finding has been assailed under ground
(e). In my considered opinion this finding cannot be faulted because it was
supported by ample evidence given by C.W.1 (Court witness No.1) the surveyor
and the respondent’s own expert witness P.W.2 who corroborated the testimony of
C.W.1. The law is well-settled that where a party’s own witness supports the
case of his opponent while his own remains uncorroborated a court of law must
uphold the corroborated evidence and enter judgment on that basis: See Tsirifo
vrs: Duah VIII (1959) GLR.63. The last ground of appeal states that the learned
trial judge erred in holding that the co-defendant was the only authority to
grant the land in dispute when the co-defendant failed to offer evidence that
the conditions set out in article 18(4) and (5) of the Constitution 1969 had
been fufilled. <o:p></o:p>The co-defendant Land
Commission is a Public Officer. The presumption “Omnia preaesumuntur rite esse
acta’ operates in their favour and it presumed until the contrary is proved
that public functions or duties have been regularly performed: See section 37
of the Evidence Decree, 1975 (NRCD.323) and Woollett vrs: Minister of
Agriculture and Fisheries (1955) IQB.103 CA: (1954) 3 All ER.529. There was
therefore no need for the co-defendant to</main>