The Supreme Court has brought finality to the ownership of 2,900 acres of land at Katamanso in the Greater Accra Region, ruling that the land belongs to real estate giant, Lakeside Estate Limited.
In a unanimous decision, a five-member panel of the apex court presided over by the Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, ruled that Agri-Cattle Lakeside Estate was the legal owner of the land, which it had legally registered and had a valid title to in accordance with the law.
The court consequently held that a sale of 0.29 acre of the portion of the land by Lakeside Estate to one Ibrahim Hudu and Suwayba Adam, two other appellants in the case, was valid and lawful.
Miscarriage of justice
The apex court gave the judgment after it upheld an appeal by Lakeside Estate and the other appellants, overturning a decision by the Court of Appeal, which had earlier ruled in favour of Tassah Tapha Tassah, the respondent, as the lawful owner of the land.
The decision by the Supreme Court restored a decision by the High Court, which had ruled in favour of Lakeside Estate.
It was the considered view of the Supreme Court that the Court of Appeal’s decision constituted a grave miscarriage of justice because at the time Tassah acquired the land in 2004, Lakeside Estate was already the original owner as far back as 1974, which the respondent (Tassah) was fully aware of.
“The evidence on record confirms that the 5th appellant (Lakeside Estate) has a good title to the land in dispute, and importantly, that at the time, Lands and Housing Ltd, the respondent’s grantor, registered an interest in the land, the 5th appellant had a validly registered and subsisting adverse interest in the disputed land, notice of which was brought to the Respondent,” the court held.
The unanimous decision of the court was authored by Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, with Justices Mariama Owusu, Yaw Darko Asare and Richard Adjei-Frimpong as members.
Background
In December 2007, Tassah sued Lakeside Estate and the two other parties at the Accra High Court, seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration of title and recovery of possession of the 0.29 acre of land, which formed part of the 2,900 acres of land.
It was the case of Tassah that he acquired the parcel of land in 2004 by lease from the Kpen We Family of La for a term of 99 years, but the land was registered in the name of one Land and Housing Limited and, therefore, he went ahead to regularise the acquisition by attorning tenancy to the said company.
He further averred that in 2013, he became aware that Lakeside Estate held the legal title to the said land, but moves to attorn tenancy to Lakeside proved futile as it had already sold the land to Ibrahim Hudu and Suwayba Adam.
However, Tassah was of the contention that despite the new development, he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of Lakeside Estate’s adverse interest and, therefore, title to the land should be declared in his favour.
On November 13, 2020, the High Court dismissed the case on the basis that Tassah failed to conduct proper investigation to ascertain the root of the title of the land; therefore, he could seek protection under bona fide purchaser for value without notice, the equity principle that protects buyers who are not aware that what they bought was already for another person.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, Tassah filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal.
On March 30, 2023, the Court of Appeal upheld his appeal and reversed the decision of the High Court.
The second highest court of the land held that the evidence on record showed that the appellant took substantive and satisfactory steps to investigate the title of the land and, therefore, he had acquired vested interests under the equity principle of bona fide purchaser for value without notice, and should therefore be protected.
Appeal
Lakeside Estate and the other parties were also dissatisfied by the decision of the Court of Appeal and further appealed to the Supreme Court.
In upholding the appeal, the Supreme Court held that evidence on record showed that a search conducted by Tassah in 2008 at the Lands Commission revealed that Agric Cattle Limited, which later became Lakeside Estate Limited, had title to the land from 1974.
The apex court held that the Court of Appeal wrongly made an inference that Lakeside Estate had no title to the land, which was probably due to the fact that the name on the search was Agric Cattle Limited.
However, the court further held that evidence on record also showed that Agric Cattle Limited changed its name to Agric Cattle Lakeside Estate in 1995.
In view of that, the Supreme Court held that Tassah had no basis to assume that Lakeside Estate had no title to the land during his search.
“Exhibit D (the search) revealed the 5th appellant’s prior registered interest in the disputed land. This constituted sufficient notice to the respondent.
“The respondent cannot remain in deliberate ignorance of the presence and possession of the 5th appellant (Lakeside Estate) on the land in question since 1970 as shown by his own search reports,” the court added
