THE REPUBLIC vs. LANDS COMMISSION (RESPONDENT) EXPARTE: KAPPA FARMS LTD (APPLICANT) YEHOBOAM COMPANY LTD, AMADU ALHASSAN AND REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF PRESBY CHURCH (INTERESTED PARTIES) [2019]DLHC7645

THE REPUBLIC vs. LANDS COMMISSION (RESPONDENT) EXPARTE: KAPPA FARMS LTD (APPLICA... [2019]DLHC7645

Date	2019-05-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO: GJ/277/17
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7645

HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU J.

GEORGE AMOAH H/B FOR AGYABENG AKRASI FOR APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT

KWAME AGATI FOR 1ST INTERESTED PARTY FOR APPLICANT

NICHOLAS ADDAE TWENEBOAH FOR RESPONDENTS

[2019]DLHC7645
																																						<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><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>LANDS
COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EXPARTE: KAPPA FARMS LTD<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>YEHOBOAM COMPANY LTD, AMADU ALHASSAN AND REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF
PRESBY CHURCH<o:p></o:p>(INTERESTED
PARTIES)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION COURT 4), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT NO: GJ/277/17&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; &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:
31ST MAY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>GEORGE AMOAH H/B FOR AGYABENG AKRASI FOR
APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>KWAME AGATI FOR 1ST INTERESTED
PARTY FOR APPLICANT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

NICHOLAS ADDAE TWENEBOAH FOR RESPONDENTS <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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG
OWUSU, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the 27th of February, 2017 the
applicant filed an application for judicial review in the nature of mandamus
compelling the respondent Lands Commission, to expunge from its record wrongful
entries adversely affecting its legal interest in property bearing Land Registry
No. 2599/91.&nbsp; Before the applicant could
be heard on the motion, a preliminary objection was taken by learned counsel
for the 1st interested party on the ground that the applicant’s
application for judicial review had been brought beyond the time set out in
Order 55 of CI 47 for the filing of an application for judicial review.&nbsp; Counsel for the 1st interested
party made submissions which briefly put are that the application has been
brought outside the six month period as provided by the rules.&nbsp; It was his contention that from exhibit ‘C’
the search report the applicant got to know that its name had been deleted from
recorded transactions affecting the subject matter on the 9th of
January, 2016.&nbsp;&nbsp; He argued that the event
giving grounds for the application should thus be construed to have occurred in
January, 2016.&nbsp; &nbsp;He submitted that the application ought to
have been filed by July, 2016.&nbsp; The application
filed on the 27th of February, 2017 was thus out of time.&nbsp; Counsel emphasized the use of the word
“shall”.&nbsp; He took the view that the
requirement under the said provision was mandatory.&nbsp;&nbsp; He described the application as incompetent
and urged the Court to dismiss it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In answer to the preliminary objection it was
submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the objection is without
merit and sins against Order 55 r 6 (5) of C.I. 47.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Counsel’s complaint was that although the 1st
respondent was served with the applicant’s statement of case it failed to file
its statement of case in compliance with the rules.&nbsp; The 1st interested party according
to him failed to meet the condition precedent in Order 55 r 6 (5) of C.I.
47.&nbsp; Therefore to grant it audience will
amount to permitting it to conduct its case piecemeal and under no known rule
of law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Next it was submitted by counsel that the event
giving grounds for the application should not be construed to have occurred when
the applicant received the results of exhibit ‘C’, the search report.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was submitted that the applicant
relentlessly pursued and engaged the respondent for rectification of the false
entries in the record of the respondent.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Counsel invited the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection.&nbsp; He contended that it had been improperly
brought in law and was frivolous and vexatious.<o:p></o:p>