THE REPUBLIC vs. CENTRAL REGION LANDS COMMISSION EX PARTE NANA AMPONSAH ATTAH IV [2014]DLCA4488

Date	2014-04-09
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. HI/31/13
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA4488

HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING)

ADJEI J.A.

ACKAH-YENSU (MS) J.A.

MR. ADUMUAH BOSSMAN FOR THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT

MR. JOHN OBENG MENSAH FOR THE REPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2014]DLCA4488
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CENTRAL REGION LANDS COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE NANA AMPONSAH ATTAH IV<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<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.&nbsp; HI/31/13&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 9TH APRIL, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
ADUMUAH BOSSMAN FOR THE APPLICANT/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">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HONYENUGA
J.A. (PRESIDING), ADJEI J.A., ACKAH-YENSU (MS) J.A.<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 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>HONYENUGA, J.A.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court, Agona Swedru dated the 13th
day of December 2012.&nbsp; The said court
dismissed an application for judicial review in the nature of Mandamus to
compel the Central Regional Lands Commission, the respondent to restore the
lapsed statutory declaration.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
of this appeal are that on the 29th December 1995, the applicant/appellant
as the chief deposed to a Statutory Declaration which he subsequently
registered with the respondent/respondent at the Lands Commission Secretariat
at Cape Coast.&nbsp; The said Statutory
Declaration was registered as CR 117/86.&nbsp;
In 2010, some prospective developers to whom the applicant/appellant
granted portions of the land to, conducted searches at the Lands Commission
Secretariat.&nbsp; The said searches revealed
that the respondent/respondent lapsed the Statutory Declaration and expunged it
from their official records on the 10th May, 2001.&nbsp; Some of those who approached the
applicant/appellant for land reported him to the Police and as a result the
Police conducted an official search at the said Lands Commission.&nbsp; The said search report dated 29th
January 2011, revealed that the applicant/appellant’s land by paragraphs 2 and
4 and by the portion marked ‘B’ on the Site plan falls within the area covered
by E.I 83 of 1961 and the portion marked ‘B’ falls within the area declared in
the Statutory Declaration of 1995 to belong to the Atekyedo stool.&nbsp; The applicant/appellant then caused his
Lawyer to write a letter dated 3rd March, 2011 acknowledging receipt
of copies of the decision of the respondent/respondent and strongly urged it to
restore the lapsed statutory declaration.&nbsp;
Furthermore, the Lawyer for the applicant/appellant wrote a letter dated
8th February, 2012 calling upon the respondent/respondent to restore
the said statutory declaration by 29th February 2012 that is a
fortnight.&nbsp; The applicant/appellant then
filed an application for an order of Mandamus at the High Court to restore the
lapsed statutory declaration.&nbsp; On the 13th
December 2012, the learned High Court Judge dismissed the application for
judicial review.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Being
aggrieved by the decision of the High Court Judge, the applicant/appellant
filed the instant appeal based on the following ground:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Ruling was against the weight of the
affidavit evidence”.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant/appellant further filed amended grounds of appeal with leave of the
court as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned High Court
Judge misdirected himself by misconstruing the appellant’s Lawyer’s letter
dated 3rd March 2011 (merely demanding a certified copy of the
Respondent’s proceedings dated 10th May 2007, to be supplied within
a fortnight) to be the effectual letter containing the appellant’s ultimatum or
demand for restoring in the respondent’s records his lapsed Statutory
Declaration, on refusal of which the application for a mandamus order would
then be brought.<o:p></o:p>(3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; FURTHER IN THE
ALTERNATIVE the said Judge erred by confusing the applicant’s demand for a
certified copy (within a fortnight) of the proceedings which were to inform him
about the lapsing of his Statutory Declaration with his lawyer’s reminding
letter dated 8th February 2012 which contained the effectual
ultimatum or threat to apply for an order of mandamus by way of judicial review
on the respondent’s refusal to restore the lapsed Statutory Declaration.<o:p></o:p>(4)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The said judge erred by
failing to appreciate that the proper computation of the 6 months time limit
for filing the application for mandamus order ran for the date of refusal,
express or constructive to comply with the demands in the appellant’s said
letter, 8th February 2012 and consequently the appellant’s
application filed on 11th May 2012 for an order of mandamus was
perfectly within time.<o:p></o:p>(5)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The said Judge erred by
failing to appreciate that the respondent, in the exercise of its
administrative duty whilst consid</main>