MADAM NAFISA IDDRISU vs. NORGA GRUMAH [2013]DLSC2810

Date	2013-05-24
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/21/2012
Citation No.	[2013]DLSC2810

WOOD (MRS.) CJ (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

YEBOAH JSC

BENIN JSC

AKAMBA JSC

A. A. LUGUTERAH ESQ FOR THE DEFENDANT /APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

SHAHADU MOHAMMED ESQ FOR THE PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT.

[2013]DLSC2810
																																						<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" >MADAM NAFISA IDDRISU<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NORGA GRUMAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/21/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 24TH MAY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>A. A. LUGUTERAH ESQ, FOR
THE DEFENDANT /APPELLANT/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">

WOOD (MRS.) CJ (PRESIDING), DOTSE JSC,
YEBOAH JSC, BENIN JSC, AKAMBA JSC<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>WOOD (MRS.), CJ;<o:p></o:p>It is rather unfortunate that what started
off and was intended as a straightforward land transaction between the parties
have caused needless financial and emotional pain and suffering to both parties
through this protracted litigation which has spanned a period of eleven long
years. It is even sadder still, that as the facts clearly demonstrate, this is
as a result of the intransigence of the Lands Commission (Commission), the
State organ with the constitutional responsibility of ensuring that property
rights of individuals are protected. Evidently, it was their blatant failure to
recognise the constitutional right of the appellant and give effect to it that
has led to this long drawn out legal wrangle.&nbsp;
I am led to believe that plainly, the matter posed such a grave dilemma
to the Plaintiff/Respondent (Respondent), that she found herself so stuck
between a hard place and a rock, she probably surmised it was more prudent and
the lesser of the two evils to sue the defendant/appellant (appellant), from
whom she initially took steps to acquire the property, rather than the Commission,
the powerful organ of State, who was proving very difficult at the time. I
shall demonstrate that sadly, that step over what appears not to be a
particularly big piece of land was her undoing. <o:p></o:p>A fair summary of the facts which triggered
the action would promote a greater understanding of our judgment in this
appeal. About 1994, the Government of Ghana (GoG), in exercise of its eminent
domain powers, compulsorily acquired property No G 20 Sabonjida (G20) from the
appellant, for the Tamale roads construction works. &nbsp;He received full compensation for the
acquisition. At the conclusion of the road works, the appellant, who happened
to be still in occupation of the unutilized portion of the land, believing that
he was the owner in possession of that unused portion of the G20, sold it to
the respondent for ¢4,000,000.00 or GH¢400.00 in today’s economy and duly executed
a deed of assignment in her favour. <o:p></o:p>The Commission however, challenged the
validity of the transaction and declined to perfect the respondent’s title on
the basis that since on compulsory acquisition, the appellant received full
compensation from the State, the unused portion remained the property of the State,
for which reason, the appellant on the principle of nemo dat quod non habet, lacked
the legal capacity to convey it to a third party. <o:p></o:p>Following the Commission’s refusal to vest
title in the respondent, and upon their advice, she applied formally to the Commission
for a lease of the said property, only to fall into another trap. The appellant
flatly refused to yield vacant possession to her on the strength of the
purported lease by the Commission to her. Caught in this vortex, she sued the
appellant in the District Court, per an amended writ of summons for the
following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “1.
A declaration that the plaintiff is the rightful lessee of plot No. G. 20, Tamale.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery
of possession of plot No. G. 20, Tamale.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Return
of ¢4,000,000.00 by defendant to plaintiff for failure to pass title or at all
to plaintiff on the contract between plaintiff and defendant with House No.
G.20, Tamale as the subject matter.<o:</main>