REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF AFRIKANIA MISSION (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. MAJOR QUARSHIE (DEFENDANT/APPELLANT) [2013]DLCA7479

REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF AFRIKANIA MISSION (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. MAJOR QUARSH... [2013]DLCA7479

Date	2013-05-16
Suit No.	CIVIL CASE NO: HI/159/2010
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA7479

JUSTICE MARIAMA OWUSU JA [PRESIDING]

JUSTICE K A ACQUAYE JA

JUSTICE MARGARET WELBOURNE JA

[2013]DLCA7479
																																						<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" >REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF AFRIKANIA MISSION<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MAJOR QUARSHIE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
CASE NO: HI/159/2010&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 16TH MAY, 2013<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CORAM:<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUSTICE
MARIAMA OWUSU JA [PRESIDING], JUSTICE K A ACQUAYE JA, JUSTICE MARGARET
WELBOURNE JA<o:p></o:p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;text-indent:36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-border-between:1.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-padding-between:1.0pt">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">MRS
MARGARET WELBOURNE, J. A. <o:p></o:p>

I
have had the privilege of reading the erudite judgment of my learned sister and
say that the industry put into her work stands out. There is however a crucial
point on which the exercise of my mind independently leads me with due respect
to a different conclusion on this appeal. My ruling is referable to (C, D, E.
&amp; F) of particulars of misdirection) as stated by the Applicant.<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
point I wish to high light has to do with the proper placement of what I find
as the equitable interest of the Plaintiff/Respondent, the Afrikannia Mission,
(hereinafter referred to as the Mission) in the disputed property.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It seems to me that when the property in
dispute was confiscated by the State under AFRCD 25 of 1979, title of the
original owner, Major Quarshie (deceased) and substituted by Mrs Quarshie, the
Appellant herein, was thereby extinguished. Following the original owner's loss
of title, title to the property instantaneously became vested in the State. The
Lands Commission has the statutory authority and duty to manage State lands.
Section 2(1) paragraph (a) of the Lands Commission Act, 1994, Act 483 provides
that: "(1) the Commission shall in coordination with relevant public
agencies and governmental bodies, (a) on behalf of the Government manage public
lands and any other lands vested in the President by the Constitution or by any
other enactment or the lands vested in the Commission."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This provision impliedly amends Section 2(1) (b) of the Confiscated Assets
(Recovery and Disposal) Committee, AFRCD 25 which provides as follows:
"(1) subject to the directives of the President the functions of the
Committee are : (b) to make recommendations as to the disposal of any of the
assets and properties confiscated to the State by the AFRC."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In my view, when the Lands Commission made the
offer of the lease to the Mission and the Mission accepted that offer, a
contract was made between the parties and an equitable interest of leasehold
vested in the Mission. That equitable interest can only be lost through
confiscation by law or by purchase by a bona fide purchaser for value without
notice of the equitable interest of the Mission. <o:p></o:p>It
is my view that an equitable interest of the respondent has been prominently
established by the evidence as set out in the Record of Appeal. Some of the
highlights are:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;a. By the Confiscated Assets Decree, (supra)
the title of the defendant/appellant became extinguished in the property in
dispute.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;b. In 1987, it was allocated to the Head of
the Afrikannia Mission, Osofo Okomfo Damoah who lived on the property till this
demise in 1992. In 1992, the Afrikannia mission took over the property and
commenced regularization and registration of their interest in the land which
the late Leader failed to do. Thus the long and visible occupation and
possession of the land by the plaintiff / respondent has matured into an
equitable interest in the property in dispute:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;c. This equitable interest was crystallized
when the Lands Commission, the agency that has the sole authority for the
registration of lands, made an offer of a leasehold to the plaintiff/respondent
which they accepted in the year 1994. <o:p></o:p>The
sequence of events following the acquisition of the equitable lease interest by
the Mission were:<o:p></o:p>i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Mission went into actual occupation.
Indeed it is not in dispute from the Record that the Mission was even in
occupation prior to the formal offer on 6th
July 1994 and acceptance of the lease by the Lands Commission and the
Mission, respectively, on 8th July 1994
as per Exhibit 'A' series. Clearly then, the Mission was
in visible and conspicuous occupation and possession of the property in issue.<o:p></o:p>ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;On 5th
</main>