AKATERE AZINGA (PER LAWFUL ATTORNEY) AND AYINE ASUAH vs. INTER CITY STC BOLGATANGA. AND LANDS COMMISSION BOLGATANGA [2019]DLHC8155

AKATERE AZINGA (PER LAWFUL ATTORNEY) AND AYINE ASUAH vs. INTER CITY STC BOLGATAN... [2019]DLHC8155

Date	2019-07-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO.C1/13/2016
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC8155

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON

ROCKSON AKUGRE FOR THE PLAINTIFF

DOUGLAS SEIDU FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANT

ARIF ABDALLAH FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANT

[2019]DLHC8155
																																						<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" >AKATERE AZINGA (PER LAWFUL ATTORNEY) AND AYINE ASUAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>INTER CITY STC BOLGATANGA. AND LANDS
COMMISSION BOLGATANGA<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
BOLGATANGA]<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.C1/13/2016&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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 JULY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ROCKSON AKUGRE FOR THE PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p>DOUGLAS SEIDU FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANT <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">

ARIF ABDALLAH FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANT<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">

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON<o:p></o:p>

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

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>The subject matter of this suit concerns the land on
which Bolgatanga branch of Inter City STC, the first defendant herein, a public
transport provider, and the predecessor of the popular State Transport Corporation
(STC), operates. It is the case of plaintiff, Akatere Azinga, suing per his
lawful attorney, Ayine Asuah, that, the parcel of land in issue is the property
of Akugsa family of Pobaga, acquired by first settlement of his ancestors, and
he is the current head of the said Akugsa family. According to him, sometime in
1960, the Government of Ghana compulsorily acquired the disputed land for
public use, namely the building of Government Transport Yard, but failed to pay
compensation to the family as original owner of the land. It is also his case
that the land so acquired is not being fully utilized for the purpose of the
acquisition as only a portion is used by the first defendant in its transport
business whilst another part lies unused and undeveloped. He therefore dragged
the defendants to court in terms of the instant writ of summons praying for
declaration of title to the land compulsorily acquired by the government of
Ghana for the transport business run by first defendant, details of which are
captured in a site plan tendered in evidence as exhibit ‘A’, and an order for
appropriate compensation to be paid to his family, or, in the alternative, an
order of the court for title of the undeveloped land to revert to his family. &nbsp;From the composite plan prepared by the Survey
and Mapping Division of the Lands Commission, exhibit CE1, 5.40 or 2.19 hectares
of the approximately 9.7 acres of the land appropriated for the first defendant,
about sixty years ago, are left unutilized. That notwithstanding, what boggles my
mind and that of Mr. Douglas Seidu, counsel for the first defendant, as
expressed in the address filed by him on behalf of his client, is plaintiff’s
endorsed relief for declaration of title to the disputed land which he does not
dispute was compulsorily acquired by the government of Ghana for public use. He
clearly pleaded the fact that the disputed land was compulsorily acquired by
the government in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim that: <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“Plaintiff avers that sometime in 1960 the Government
of Ghana compulsorily acquired the aforesaid large track (sic) of the family
land under a certificate of appropriation for building the then State Transport
Corporation.”&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The fact that the disputed land was compulsorily
acquired by the Government was further explained in paragraph 6 of the witness
statement of plaintiff’s attorney in the following unambiguous terms:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“Our ancestors namely Akugsa Agongo, Amalima Akugsa,
Anaane Akugsa, Akumpule Anaane, and Atiah Akumpule all of Akugsa family
successively exercised various acts of possession over the land including farming
until sometime in 1960 when the Government of Ghana compulsorily acquired the
aforesaid large track (sic) of the family land under a certificate of
appropriation for building the then State Transport Corporation” <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Undoubtedly, if the land so described was compulsorily
acquired by the Government, then it stands to reason that title to it is vested
in the Government, and the relief for declaration of title simpliciter of the
same property by the plaintiff is obviously incompetent. It is trite learning
that title to compulsorily acquired lands cannot be impeached or called in
question in any action: See&nbsp; Sagoe &amp;
Others v Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) (2012) 2 SCGLR
1093. Hence an acquisition, compulsorily, by the state of a parcel of land, as
in the instant case, operates to extinguish any title and/or interest that a
person might have had at the date of the publication of the instrument of
acquisition, and it would not matter if the acquisition was previous to the
interest held in the land by the individual or subsequent thereto. Mr. Douglas
Seidu was right when he expressed the opinion that the relief for declaration
of title to the compulsorily acquired land, which is in dispute in this action,
should have been </main>