NII KOJO DANSO II vs. VRSTHE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, LANDS COMMISSION, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, LAND VALUATION BOARDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND JOSHUA ATTOH QUARSHIE [2018]DLSC4135

NII KOJO DANSO II vs. VRSTHE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, LANDS COMMISSION, THE EXECUTIV... [2018]DLSC4135

Date	2018-11-28
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/35/2017
Citation No.	[2018]DLSC4135

ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

BENIN JSC

PWAMANG JSC

KWEKU Y. PAINTSIL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.

ASAMOAH AMOAKO WITH HIM YAW OPPONG AND PATRICK SOGBODJOR FOR THE APPLICANT/ APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.

[2018]DLSC4135
																																						<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" >NII KOJO DANSO II<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>VRSTHE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, LANDS COMMISSION, THE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, LAND VALUATION BOARDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND JOSHUA ATTOH QUARSHIE<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. J4/35/2017&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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: 28TH
NOVEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KWEKU Y. PAINTSIL FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/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">

ASAMOAH
AMOAKO WITH HIM YAW OPPONG AND PATRICK SOGBODJOR FOR THE APPLICANT/ APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING),
DOTSE JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, BENIN JSC, AND PWAMANG JSC<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="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>BENIN,
JSC:- <o:p></o:p>This is one of those cases wherein the old adage
'there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow' is apt. This is because
there is money sitting in state coffers to be collected by whoever is declared
to be the rightful person to be substituted for the original plaintiff in this
case. After securing judgment, the original plaintiff Nii Kojo Danso I died
before the compensation due on the compulsory acquisition of part of land at
Dansoman, was paid. These are therefore post-judgment proceedings. Following
the demise of Nii Kojo Danso I, one Alhaji Issah Oblitey applied and was
substituted for him as the 1st plaintiff. The appellant herein made an
application to the High Court to substitute the deceased in place of Alhaji
Issah Oblitey, he being the son of the deceased Nii Kojo Danso I and successor
to the Dansoman stool. The respondent who claimed to have been duly appointed
by the owners of the land, the Ajumanku Dawurampong royal family, to replace
the late Nii Kojo Danso I as plaintiff, brought an application before the High
Court to set aside the order that substituted the appellant herein as the 1st
plaintiff. The application was refused by the court in a ruling in which the
application was described as one for joinder. The respondent invoked the High
Court's review jurisdiction under order 42 of C. I. 47 praying the court to
revisit its decision. Once again the court refused the request.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Following the denial of the review application,
the respondent herein appealed against the said decision to the Court of
Appeal. After the issuance and service of Form 6, the appellant therein (now
respondent) filed his written submission. It was served on the respondent (now
appellant), but he did not file any written submission. On 2nd December 2015,
the appeal was placed before the Court of Appeal for hearing. At the hearing,
counsel for the then respondent, appellant herein, intimated to the court that there
were some errors in the Record of Appeal (ROA), but there is no indication as
to the nature of the errors. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal caved in and stated
that the appeal was not ripe for hearing so it made an order remitting the
record to the Registrar to take necessary action.<o:p></o:p>The next proceeding took place some three months
later when the Court of Appeal, composed of a single justice thereof, made an
order listing the appeal for hearing. This was the result of a request in
writing from the respondent herein to the said court. Hearing notices were
served on the key parties herein, namely the appellant and the respondent as
well as on the Attorney-General. On the return date, namely 25 April 2016, both
counsel for the appellant and the respondent as well as the appellant, now
respondent, were in court. The record shows that the court adjourned the appeal
to the 21st July 2016 for judgment. The court allowed the appeal and made an
order substituting the appellant herein with the respondent herein in place of
the late Nii Kojo Danso I as the first plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>The appellant has brought this appeal against the
Court of Appeal's judgment and orders on these grounds:<o:p></o:p>1. The judgment is against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>2. The Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to
entertain the appeal due to the Applicant/Appellant/Respondent's non-compliance
with Rule 20(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1997 as amended by C. I. 25.<o:p></o:p>3. The Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to
entertain an appeal emanating from a refusal of a High Court judge to review an
earlier ruling.<o:p></o:p>