Court reverts Shiashie lands to Lands Commission
The Lands Division of the High Court has set aside a 1999 judgement granted in favour of the Apantse We Family against the government in respect of a portion of land acquired at Shiashie by the state in 1944 for the purpose of extending the air field of the Allied Forces during the Second World War.
Advertisement
The court declared the judgement as void and, accordingly, set aside the purported registration of parcels of land made by the Land Title Registry (now the Registration Division of the Lands Commission) which was made based on that judgement.
It also set aside all grants made by the family pursuant to the registration of such lands.
The court’s order followed an application by the family for a judicial review against the Lands Commission and its Registration Division.
According to the family, after the end of the war in 1945, the colonial government abandoned the air field project without taking possession of the land at all and, therefore, the family remained in possession of the land as owners without the consent or authority of the colonial and post-colonial governments and had done so up till now.
Lands Commission
It said in the 1970s and 80s, the Lands Commission, acting for and on behalf of the government, started allocating portions of the land to individuals and organisations, a conduct which was opposed to by the family.
The family then instituted an action against the government for a declaration that the continued possession of Shiashie land by its owners after the 1944 acquisition without the consent of both the colonial and post-colonial governments for more than 12 years was tantamount to adverse possession and as such had extinguished the title the government acquired under the limitation decree.
On April 20, 1999, the High Court entered judgement in favour of the family, following which the family applied to the Land Title Registry to have its title to the Shiashie lands registered in its name.
Other Trending Stories
The application was granted, with land certificate number 29779, dated June 2009, being issued to the family.
Publications
Since that judgement, the family had enjoyed quiet and undisturbed possession of the land and had granted some interests in the land to certain individuals and organisations, some of whom had registered their titles.
The family instructed its lawyer to cause a publication in the two national dailies drawing the public’s attention to the alleged interference with its title by the Lands Commission.
However, the commission published a rejoinder through the same media to the effect that the 1999 judgement of the High Court should be ignored because it was void and, therefore, not binding on the commission.
The commission indicated that the subject matter of the suit was part of a larger tract of land acquired by the state in 1944 for the purpose of extending the existing air field and not for the construction of an air field for the use of the Allied Forces in the war.
It said following competing claims, the La Stool, headed by Nii Adjei Quano, was adjudged the rightful owner against the Osu Stool, headed by Nii Noi Owuo II, and the Ga Stool headed by Nii T.R. Quartey.
Subsequently, it said compensation was received by the La Stool, which apportioned it among the various families under it.
State designation
The state, in the 1970s, designated the area, South of the Accra-Tema Motorway, as commercial for the development of hotels, offices, shops, etc, while designating the northern area as residential area (East Legon).
The commission further said in 1976, the then La Mantse, Nii Anyeitei Kwakranya II, also President of the La Traditional Council, submitted a petition to General I.K. Acheampong to permit the La villages of Shiashie, Okponglo, Bawaleshie and Abotchiman to remain within the East Legon Residential Area on humanitarian grounds, and which petition was permitted following the recommendations of the W.K. Alomatu Committee.
It said the facts of the La Mantse’s petition and the subsequent permission by the state were lost on the Attorney-General who had no prior knowledge of them and thus failed to raise them as a defence in the suit by the family.
According to the commission, the family also fraudulently concealed those facts from the trial judge and that even though the 1993 suit was about the declaration of title, the trial judge relied on the civil procedure rules to determine the matter on the basis of the pleadings, without conducting a trial, contrary to judicial decisions.
It said the trial judge erred when he assumed jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and interpreted Article 20 of the 1992 Constitution retroactively to apply to a pre-1992 acquisition.
Ruling
Advertisement
In his ruling, Mr Justice Ernest Obimpeh made a distinction between adverse possession and the failure of the government to use the land compulsorily acquired for the purpose for which it was acquired and held that adverse possession meant the use and enjoyment of the land by the claimant for a period of at least12 years without the authority of the owner.
The principle, he said, was that no action might be brought for recovery of land after the expiration of 12 years from the time when the right of action first accrued and said it appeared the 1999 judgement failed to make such a distinction and used Article 20(6) of the 1992 Constitution to justify the claim of the family.
He said the 1999 judgement should not have been entered for the family, as the family failed to describe with certainty the boundaries of the land per its claim, adding that the conduct of the family of submitting applications at will for registration of parcels of land was, to say the least, suspicious.
Mr Justice Obimpeh held that the 1944 acquisition by the state was done under a certificate of title registered to cover 5.6 square miles and the 1999 judgement did not revoke the said certificate, while what the judgement granted was the area the trial judge found to be supported by the fact of adverse possession, namely, the Shiashie village.
Advertisement
“Indeed, if the said judgement affected the whole of the 5.6 square miles, it would have meant that the plaintiff would have acquired the Kotoka International Airport and its attendant facilities,’’ he said.
Story: Stephen Sah / Daily Graphic