MRS. MARGARET MARY ADJEI VS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY LANDS COMMISSION AND PROF. KOJO SENANU [2017]DLSC6140

MRS. MARGARET MARY ADJEI VS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY LANDS... [2017]DLSC6140

Date	2017-12-19
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/49/2014
Citation No.	[2017]DLSC6140

AKUFFO CJ (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

PWAMANG JSC

ROBERT YARTEY FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

EVELYN APPIAH SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

NICHOLAS ADDAE-TWENEBOA FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

KWABLA SENANU FOR THE 3RD DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2017]DLSC6140
																																						<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" >MRS. MARGARET MARY ADJEI<o:p></o:p>VS.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY LANDS COMMISSION AND PROF. KOJO SENANU<o:p></o:p>[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.
J4/49/2014&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 19TH DECEMBER,
2017<o:p></o:p>

KWABLA SENANU FOR THE 3RD DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" 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>AKUFFO, CJ:-<o:p></o:p>Brief Background of
the Case<o:p></o:p>On 6th September 2005, the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the
Appellant”) commenced an action against the Respondents in the High Court, Land
Division, Accra, for a declaration of title to the land described in the writ
of summons, and for other reliefs. In her Statement of Claim, the Appellant
averred, among other things, that by an indenture registered at the Deeds
Registry, Accra as number 840/1962, she was, as a subject of Osu, granted a
large piece of land, of which the land in dispute herein forms a part, by Nii
Noi Dowuona IV, the Osu Mantse at the time. Of particular significance are
paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Statement of Claim, which are in the following
terms:-<o:p></o:p>“On 9th September
1964 whilst the Plaintiff herein, was in effective possession, an Executive
Instrument No. 108 purported to have compulsorily acquired the land under
subsection (1) of Section 7 of the Administration of Lands Act, 1962 (Act 123).<o:p></o:p>“By virtue of the
said Executive Instrument No. 108 dated 9th September 1964, the 2nd Defendant
herein held itself out as having been vested with interests in the Plaintiff’s
land and proceeded to deal with the said land as if it had been vested in the
President of the Republic of Ghana.”<o:p></o:p>She contended that, as at the date of the said Executive Instrument, the
land in dispute was not stool land but was rather her land, the Osu Stool
having divested itself of the same by the grant made to her. She further
contended, in effect, that, in any event, lands vested under section 7(1) of
Act 123 were to be held in trust for subjects of the Osu Stool and for use in
the public interest<o:p></o:p>Eventually, after the Appellant, as Plaintiff, filed an application for
directions setting out certain issues, and 3rd Respondent herein (3rd Defendant
in the said suit) filed two additional issues for legal argument. At the
hearing of the application for directions, on 14th May 2007, the learned High
Court Judge, Justice Ofori Atta, ordered that “issues A and B of the issues on
the application and 1 and 2 of the additional issues be set down for legal
argument”, pursuant to Order 33(4). These issues were:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “Whether or not the Plaintiff is and
has at all material times been the lawful owner of the disputed property.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “Whether or not the purported
compulsory acquisition of the land in dispute through the Executive Instrument
No. 108 dated 9th September 1964 succeeded in vesting the President of the
Republic of Ghana with title in the said land, and<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “Whether or not by E.I.108 Accra/Tema
City Stool Land (Vesting) Instrument, 1964 (hereinafter “E.I. 108”) the said
Executive Instrument vested all Stool lands and Public lands in the Accra/Tema
areas and in the North Dzorwulu areas in the President, in trust for the State.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the compulsory
acquisition per E.I.108 of 1964 lapsed with the coming into force of the 1992
Constitution.”<o:p></o:p>For ease or reference, the terms of Order 33(5) of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I.47) are as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“Dismissal of action
after determination of preliminary issue<o:p></o:p>5. Where it appears
to the Court that the decision of any question or issue arising in any cause or
matter and tried separately from the main cause or matter substantially
disposes of the cause or matter or renders trial of the main cause or matter unnecessary,
it may dismiss the cause or matter or make such other order or give such
judgment as may be just.”<o:p></o:p>The thrust of the Appellant’s legal argument in the High Court was that
E.I. 108 did n</main>