HUGH KWATELAI QUARTEY-PAPAFIO vs. IBRAHIM SIBIE [2022]DLHC16410

Date	2022-07-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/0584/2021
Citation No.	[2022]DLHC16410

HIS LORDSHIP K. A. GYIMAH

ROBERT PAPPOE WITH TEI MENSAH ADDICO FOR ALFRED BANNERMAN-WILLIAMS JNR. FOR PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT.

JACOB ACQUAH-SAMPSON FOR DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT.

[2022]DLHC16410
																																						<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" >&nbsp;HUGH KWATELAI QUARTEY-PAPAFIO&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>IBRAHIM SIBIE <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. LD/0584/2021&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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:
25TH JULY 2022<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>ROBERT
PAPPOE WITH TEI MENSAH ADDICO FOR ALFRED BANNERMAN-WILLIAMS JNR. FOR PLAINTIFF/
RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

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

</div>Introduction<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On 7th June 2021, the
plaintiff issued a writ of summons against the defendant claiming the reliefs
of declaration of title, recovery of possession, perpetual
injunction, and damages for trespass.
The defendant entered conditional appearance to the writ and followed it up with
the present application seeking to strike out the writ of summons for want of
jurisdiction pursuant to section 98(1) of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036). <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Summary
of defendant/ applicant’s application<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the case of the defendant/
applicant that the land in dispute is situate in a registration district and by
virtue of section 98(1) of Act 1036, the plaintiff should have first resorted
to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) under the Alternative Dispute
Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) before proceeding to court. The defendant argues
that there is no evidence that the plaintiff resorted to the ADR procedures
under Act 798 before coming to court. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Counsel for the defendant therefore
argues that the action that has been commenced by the plaintiff was in clear
breach of section 98(1) of Act 1036 and by the plain and ordinary meaning of
the said section, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the
present action. Counsel referred the court to the Australian case of Amalgamated
Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129
where the Court stated that a statute is to be expounded according to the
intent of the parliament that made it and it is our duty to obey the meaning of
the statute in its ordinary sense even if we think the result to be inconvenient,
impolitic or improbable.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Counsel argued that in using the
purposive approach to interpret statutes, it is the duty of the court to elicit
the literal meaning of the words and also look at the statute as a whole and
where the provision makes reference to other statutes, to interpret the words
together with the meaning alluded to it in the other statutes. He argued
further that when such an interpretation is adopted with respect to section
98(1) of Act 1036, one must necessarily come to the conclusion that in a land
matter with respect to land situate in a registration district, a party must
attempt ADR before approaching the Courts with original jurisdiction in land
matters.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Counsel referred to the case of Boyefio
v. NTHC Properties (1997-98) 1 GLR 798 and argued that it provides no
guidance for the situation that we are confronted with in this case because the
case dealt with section 12(1) of the Land Title Registration Act, 1985 (PNDCL
152) where an administrative tribunal had been provided for the resolution of
disputes. He however argues that Act 1036 does not provide for such an
adjudicatory body and therefore reliance on that case to deal with the issues
raised in this suit will be most unhelpful. Counsel therefore argues that this
court has no jurisdiction to entertain this action and he prays that the
plaintiff’s writ should be struck out and the suit dismissed.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Summary
of plaintiff’</main>