SAMUEL KAKRA MENSAH vs. CHRISTOPHER KWABLA LIGBIDI [2014]DLCA2914

Date	2014-03-20
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/202/2013
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA2914

MARIAMA OWUSU (PRESIDING)

OFOE J.A.

TORKORNOOJ.A

NANA ATO DADZIE FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

MR. AKABA A. T. B. FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2014]DLCA2914
																																						<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" >SAMUEL KAKRA MENSAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CHRISTOPHER KWABLA LIGBIDI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, 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. H1/202/2013&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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
MARCH, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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>NANA ATO DADZIE FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<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.
AKABA A. T. B. FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<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">

MARIAMA OWUSU (PRESIDING), OFOE J.A. ,TORKORNOOJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT <o:p></o:p>MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
March 1997, our Supreme Court in a land mark decision in AMUZU VS. OKLIKAH [1998-99] SCGLR, 141, unanimously held in holding
[1] that:<o:p></o:p>“The
Land Registry Act, 1962 [Act 122] did not abolish the equitable doctrines of
notice and fraud; neither did it confer on a registered instrument a
state-guarantee title. Consequently, a later instrument [such as exhibit B in
the instant case] could only obtain priority over an earlier one by
registration under section 24 [1] of Act 122 if it was obtained without notice
and fraud of the earlier unregistered instrument. Since, in the instant case,
the plaintiff had actual notice that the land was in some way encumbered, he
would be held to have constructive notice of the earlier grant to the
defendant. The Court of Appeal erred in holding otherwise”.<o:p></o:p>In
the words of Sophia Akuffo JSC;<o:p></o:p>“Although
the need to be a bonafide purchase without notice is not expressly stipulated
in Act 122, once it is accepted that the object of the Act is to afford and
facilitate notice to the public of pre-existing interest in any piece of land,
then, it can be validly argued that the objective is achieved when the
purchaser has prior notice of such interest even if the instrument covering the
interest is unregistered”. <o:p></o:p>This
appeal is not about the Land Registry Act, 1962 [Act 122]. But the case referred
to supra set the tone for the issue raised in this appeal which revolves around
double allocation or sale of the disputed land to the respondent and the 1st
appellant.<o:p></o:p>On
19-7-2010, the High Court, Tema, gave judgment for the plaintiff. The Court
held that:<o:p></o:p>“Judgment is hereby entered for the
plaintiff. It is hereby ordered that the 2nd defendant [TDC] issue a
formal lease in respect of Plots No. RP/16A/157 and 158 to the plaintiff. The
allocation of Plot No. 158 to the 1st defendant by the Nungua Traditional
Council is hereby declared wrongful and the said allocation is hereby
cancelled.<o:p></o:p>The 1st defendant is hereby
ordered to remove his structure from Plot No. 157 [sic] at his own cost and
vacate the said plot and give vacant possession to the plaintiff forthwith. The
1st defendant, his agents, servants and workers are hereby
perpetually restrained from entering the said plot or doing anything whatsoever
on the said plot. The 1st defendant and his workers or agents are
permitted to enter the plot for the purpose of removing his structure.<o:p></o:p>Cost of GH¢5,000 for the plaintiff
against 1st defendant. GH¢1,000 against the 3rd
defendant. I deem it fair not to award any cost against the 2nd
defendant”.<o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied
with the decision of the High Court, the 1st and 3rd
defendants appealed to this Court on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>[1] The judgment of the Honourable Court
was against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>[2] The Honourable High Court Judge
erred in law when it ignored the importance of the non-service of process on the
3rd defendant.<o:p></o:p>[3] The Honourable High Court
misdirected itself when it refused to allow the 3rd defendant and
his counsel the right to participate in the trial at the instance of their
counsel’s written application to participate in the trial and to set aside the
proceedings so far. This violated the rules of Natural Justice to wit the Audi
Alteram Partem Rule. It occasioned miscarriage of Justice.<o:p></o:p>[4] Her Lordship the High Court Judge
did not give sufficient attention to the evidence of Nii Borketey Danfa, the
Secretary to the Nungua Stool, who gave evidence as a witness of 1st
defendant by not evaluating his evidence against the evidence of the plaintiff.
And this affect</main>