PASTOR YAW BOATENG vs. KWADWO MANU & ANOR [2006]DLSC6437

Date	2006-11-18
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J8/42/2006
Citation No.	[2006]DLSC6437

ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

MRS. WOOD J.S.C.

BROBBEY J.S.C.

ANSAH J.S.C.

ANINAKWAH J.S.C.

MR. STEPHEN KOFI SONDEM FOR APPELLANT

MR. KWASI AFRIFA FOR RESPONDENT

[2006]DLSC6437
																																						<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" >PASTOR YAW BOATENG <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT) <o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KWADWO MANU &amp; ANOR <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
MOTION NO. J8/42/2006&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;DATE:
18TH NOVEMBER, 2006.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. STEPHEN KOFI SONDEM FOR
APPELLANT <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">

MR. KWASI AFRIFA FOR RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

ATUGUBA, J.S.C. (PRESIDING) MRS.
WOOD, J.S.C. BROBBEY, J.S.C. ANSAH, J.S.C. AND ANINAKWAH, J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>ATUGUBA, J.S.C <o:p></o:p>This is an application for
special leave to appeal to this court. The suit originated in the Circuit
Court, Kumasi, whence the Plaintiff/Appellant/Applicant (hereinafter referred
to as the Applicant) appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal. The applicant's
application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to this court was also
dismissed. <o:p></o:p>The Applicant contends
that an issue as to whether an allocation note relating to land is registrable
or not which arose in the case and attracted a split decision in the Court of
Appeal is one of public importance, since “it is a matter of public knowledge that
transactions relating to the sale or grant of stool or family lands for
building purpose in Ghana is usually preceded by the issuance of an Allocation Note
by the grantor and it will be stretching the law too far to require that such
Allocation Notes be registered before they can become valid as held by the
majority." This is a contention arising solely, ab incovenienti,
and in view of the test for registrability of instruments affecting land by
this court in AMUZU V. OKLIKAH. (1998-99) SCGLR 141, would not move this court
as a special reason for granting special leave to appeal to this court. In
paragraphs 11 to 13 of his supporting affidavit, however, the applicant deposes
as follows: <o:p></o:p>“That
there is uncontroverted evidence on record to show that the whole Oman of
Bosore met and agreed and resolved that vacant portions of outskirt lands be
demarcated for building purpose. <o:p></o:p>That
I repeat paragraph 11 supra and state that the 1st Respondent's family was duly
represented by one Opanin Kwabena Owusu who never raised any objection to the
decision taken by the Oman. <o:p></o:p>That
it was upon the said decision and resolution by the Oman of Bosore that
Plaintiff/Appellant/Applicant acquired the disputed land." <o:p></o:p>Even
though these are strenuously denied by the Respondent, these matters arise upon
a careful reading of the judgments delivered in this case in the Court of
Appeal. These matters raise the question of what the esteemed late Professor
Bentsi-Enchill in his book, “Ghana Land Law” described as the Eminent Domain,
that is to say, the right of the State to compulsorily acquire land in the
public interest. <o:p></o:p>This question of Eminent
Domain has reared its head even at the customary level. Judges have expressed
views as to the possible limits and qualifications that may be necessary to be
made to the subject's usufructuary title in the face of modern developmental
needs of customary communities. This question has not been settled and is of
obvious general public importance. <o:p></o:p>There is also the question
of fraud regarding the validity of the customary arbitration award. The
question in this case veers between the law relating to a prior inconsistent
statement simpliciter and fraud and therefore constitutes a grey area which
must be of public importance. <o:p></o:p>The categories of fraud,
it has been said, de die in diem, are not closed, hence the need for the
dichotomy between a prior inconsistent statement and fraud to be clarified. <o:p></o:p>We believe that the
aforementioned questions arising out of this case do pass for special reasons
for the grant of special leave in this case, see DOLPHYNE (No.2) V. SPEEDLINE STEVEDORING CO. LTD (1996-97) SCGLR 373
and KOTEY V. KOLETEY (2000) SCGLR 417, to mention a few. <o:p></o:p>

The application is
accordingly granted.<o:p></o:p></main>