EMMANUEL RAY QUARCOO vs. REV. GURU JANAKANDA [2019]DLHC8931

Date	2019-01-30
Suit No.	SUIT N0. FAL/664/2014
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC8931

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.

ERA ANGELINA DANIELS KLU FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.

KWAME FOSU GYEABOUR FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2019]DLHC8931
																																						<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" >EMMANUEL RAY QUARCOO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>REV. GURU JANAKANDA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (LAND DIVISION 5), 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
N0.&nbsp; FAL/664/2014&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
30TH JANUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ERA ANGELINA DANIELS KLU FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.<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">

KWAME
FOSU GYEABOUR FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT <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">

BEFORE
HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.<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">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>BACKGROUND<o:p></o:p>The High Court differently constituted
entered judgment in favour of plaintiff on the reliefs he sought from the court
which inter alia included reliefs for declaration of title to a piece of land
and recovery of possession of same.<o:p></o:p>On the 24th day of July 2018
the Court ordered the Regional Director of Survey and Mapping Division of the
Lands Commission to appoint a Surveyor to map-out the judgment plan of the
plaintiff on the ground &nbsp;subsequent to an
application by the plaintiff for a writ of possession and an order for
demolition which had been opposed by the defendant.<o:p></o:p>In the instant application the
defendant applied to the court to have the surveyor appointed by the Director
of Survey and Mapping Division of the Lands Commission to carry out the
exercise of mapping out the judgment plan of the victorious party in the action
changed on grounds of bias on the part of the surveyor (Herein after the
Defendant shall be called the “Applicant” and the plaintiff the “Respondent”).<o:p></o:p>The grounds of applicant’s application
to this court are as follows and I will like to quote him in exntenso.&nbsp; The Regional Director of Survey and Mapping
Division of the Lands Commission appointed someone to conduct the survey
work.&nbsp; The said surveyor as of now has
refused to disclose his name to the applicant.<o:p></o:p>He Continued:&nbsp; The parties first went onto the land for the
surveyor to pick the points on the 15th of August 2018.&nbsp; And the surveyor informed him (applicant)
that the court order has been changed and that he will conduct the exercise
again based on another site plan from the Respondent which was different from
the judgment plan of the Respondent.&nbsp; The
applicant requested to see the new court order but the surveyor failed to show
him.&nbsp; As a result of the unwillingness on
the part of the surveyor to show the applicant the purported changed court
order, applicant requested the surveyor to stop the work for him to verify if
there is any such new court order.&nbsp;
Applicant again continued as follows:<o:p></o:p>Any time the surveyor comes to the
site, he came with the Respondent in his car and stayed with Respondent on his
land before the exercise would commence.<o:p></o:p>It is the contention of the applicant
that the conduct of the appointed surveyor is suspicious and connotes bias
against him and that he has every reason to believe that the appointed surveyor
will not do an objective and an unbiased work.&nbsp;
He therefore prays the court to either order the surveyor to furnish the
court with the work so far done upon the visit to the land on 15th
day of August, 2018 or a different surveyor be appointed to conduct the exercise
in the presence of the parties and their own private surveyors and an official
of the court to ensure a fair, open and unbiased survey work.&nbsp; It must be noted that as part of Applicant’s
lawyer’s written argument he cited Order 81, Rule 2 (1) of C.I 47 which states:<o:p></o:p>2 (1)&nbsp;
“An application may be made by motion to set aside for irregularity any
proceedings, any step taken in the proceedings or any document, judgment or order
in it, and the grounds of it shall be stated in the notice of the application”.<o:p></o:p>Counsel submitted based on the above
rule of pro</main>