Akainyah Case Facts Akainah received a 320-acre stool land gift for farming purposes. Lands commission refused to give consent and concurrence Issues o Whether or not Akainah was subject to a determinable estate in the stool land o Whether or not 320 acres was in excess of the statutory limit o Whether or not the powers of the commission were exercised judiciously or capriciously Ruling o Akainah was a stool subject and was by customary law entitled to a determinable interest o Limit for farmland is 16000 acres. 320 acres falls below this limit o The refusal of the commission to grant concurence was unreasonable and oppressive.
Botchwey V State Insurance Corporation
Facts Botchwey’s land was compulsorily acquired for SIC estates. No notice was issued to botchwey. Botchwey sued to nullify the acquisition. Issues o Whether or not the acquisition was valid without publication o Whether or not the land was vest in the president o Whether or not SIC can be a beneficiary of the acquisition Ruling o The acquisition is invalid without publication o The state had no title to the land as the land “had not been acquired” o SIC were trespassers as their grantors had no valid title to the land _nemo dat quod non habet
Ellis and another v Attorney General
Facts Ellis and another had their lands compulsory acquired under PNDCL 294 which did not allow for retaining of possession. Upon the passing of the 1992 constitution, Ellis sued for reacquisition. Issues o Whether or not PNDCL 294 was in contravention with the constitution o Whether or not PNDCL 294 could be struck out as null and void Ruling o PNDCL has been repealed by the 1992 constitution. However, the constitution operates prospectively and not retrospectively. Thus, lands acquired under former laws still hold 2: Lovelace Felix Mensah Tetteh V Dr. Ameni-Quarshie & Margaret Adjei Facts Margaret received a gift of land in dzorwulu. Dzorwulu land was compulsorily vested under Act 123. The land was zoned. Margaret acquired a lease which she later sold to Ameni- Quarshie. Mensah claimed to have title to the land. He sued for a declaration of title and possession. Issues o Whether or not Margaret was ever in possession of the disputed land o Whether or not Section 7 of Act 123 can be inteprated to include private lands o Whether or not a gift from a stool to an individual alienated the land from stool lands o Whether or not the two concurrent leases had legal effect Ruling o Since there was no proof of the absence of any of 31 customary gifting steps as identified by Ollenu in Principles of customary land in Ghana, the gift was presumed to be valid. o Section 7 of Act 123 only allows the president to vest stool lands. Private are exempt. o Osu stool had ceased to control that land. This ceasation of control by the Osu stool had legally taken the land out of Osu stool land and thus a private land. _Section 31 of Act 123 o Since Margaret’s freehold interest still subsisted, the lands commission had no authority to grant a lease to Mensah _Nemo dat quod non habet _Botchway v SIC
Mensah-Monchar v Chainartey [1972] 2 GLR 293
Facts
Mensah bought a plot of land on 29th March 1951 and had title deeds registered in March 1953. Prior to the sale, the Government of Ghana had compulsorily acquired the same plot of Land, on the 23rd March 1951.
After a notice had been published in the gazette in which all persons with interest in the land were invited to make claims for compensation within 3 months. Mensah failed to make a claim. In 1968 the Chainartey was granted a lease of the said land for 99 years. Mensah instituted an action for declaration of title to the land
Issues o Whether or not transfer after notice was valid o Whether or not Mensah had valid interest in the land o Whether or not Mensah’s registration prevents the government from disputing his title o Whether or not compulsory acquisition extinguishes one’s interest in land Ruling o As at the time of the transfer to Mr. Mensah, the transferor had no valid interest in the property. Mr. Mensah therefore has no interest in the property. _Nemo dat quod non habet o Since the transfer is void, any purported registration will have no effect. o Upon acquisition, rights of the subject to the property is neither diminished nor extinguished but it is compulsorily changed in form to compensation.
1 _take done to land _have neighbours stand at their boundaries _donee is taking around said boundaries 3: Nii Kpobi Tettey Tsuru III v The Attorney General Facts Land was acquired by Nii (P) for the establishment of a wireless station. However, residential facilities were developed on the land and sold to private entities. Issues o Whether or not the land must be used for the purpose for which it was acquired o Whether or not the said constitutional provisions could have retrospective effect Ruling o The constitution allows for separate purpose; once it lies in public interest o The constitution does not operate retrospectively. Only prospectively
Nii Nikoi Amontia v MD of Ghana Telecom (AC)
Facts Government compulsorily acquired and granted a lease to Ghana Telecom. The claimants claimed for repossession of the land because a greater portion of the land was not in use. Their claim was on the basis that the land had not been used for the stated purpose. That is, being used as a housing complex rather than installation of cables for which it was acquired. Issues o Whether or not a change of the stated purpose of acquisition was allowed o Whether or not the use to which the land was put was in line with public interest o Whether or not the claimants are entitled to recovery of possession Ruling o The claimants could have been granted recovery of possession on the basis that the defendant’s use was not in line with intended purpose. However, recovery of possession was denied as the purpose was in public interest. _Nii Kpobi Tettey Tsuru III v The Attorney General o As per the definition of public interest in Article 20(1); public interest is any manner of use that promotes public benefit. Provision of housing for staff could be seen as public interest since housing will increase the efficiency of staff in their provision of services to the general public. 4: Owusu et al v Agyei et al (HC) Facts Government compulsorily acquired land to be used as national park. Agyei et al fraudulently claimed and received the compensation for their persons. Owusu et al who were all subjects of the stool sued for the recovery of compensation rightly belonging to the stool and not the persons of the chiefs. Issues o Whether or not the claimants were entitled to recovery of compensation and payment into stool account o Whether or not the claimants had the capacity to sue o Whether or not the defendants were absolute title holders of the acquired land. o Whether or not the chief could be sued Ruling o Yes, sub chiefs were trustees and should use the money to the benefit of the people o Land belonged to the stool. Not the persons of the chiefs. o Sub chief acted in his private capacity. Thus he can be sued as a private citizen Gyamfi and another v Owusu and others (AC) _Owusu v Agyei (AC) Issues o Whether or not the acquisition was valid in law o Whether or not the payment of compensation was regular o Whether or not the subject of the stool may sue o Only minister entitled to claim compensation Ruling o No, cos of no publication o no, since there was no valid acquisition o No, kwan v nyieni o Yes, since compensation is revenue …S.17 of Act 123 Owusu v Agyei (SC) Issues o May subject sue o Acquisition valid? o Compensation valid? o Only minister entitled to claim compensation Ruling o yes, exception of kwan v nyieni o yes, acquisition is valid once due process had been done o yes, but must be paid into the right account o No, citizens can recover 5: Republic v Lands Commission (SC) _why republic and not vanderpuye? Facts Vanderpuye acquired and registered a leasehold interest. The national Chieftaincy tribunal declared the enstoolment of the then chief as null and void. Vanderpuye was thus called to renegotiate another contract, re-offering consideration, with the new chief. Vanderpuye protested all the way to the high court. Issues o Whether or not the then “chief” had the capacity to grant lease o Whether or not the deed of lease was valid o Whether or not the lands commission had the capacity to expunge the lease from records Ruling o The chief had capacity to grant lease as he was recognised as a chief by the government o The lease was valid regardless that the chief was eventually destooled o Lands commission did not have capacity to expunge from their records
ROCKSON v Agadzi 1979 GLR
Facts Rockson was the owner of a plot of Land, which he was in possession. Claimed, claimed a portion of the land was leased to her by the government, who compulsorily acquired said land. Rockson was unaware of such acquisition of his land; he sued for possession. Issues o Whether or not there was a valid publication of instrument. o Whether or not the land was compulsorily acquired o Whether or not the lease to Agadzi was valid Ruling o Publication was not valid, as the principles laid out in section 2 of Act 125 must be followed in regressive order _i.e. from top to down. Only try 2 when 1 cannot be done. o A lack of publication nullifies the acquisition o The lease was invalid; Nemo dat quod non habet
