Danchira land belongs to Nii Djan Bi Amu family – High Court

The Human Rights 2 division of the High Court Presided by the learned Nicholas Abodakpi J. has ruled in favour of the Nii Djan Bi Amu family as the rightful owners of 13,081.8 acres of land situate at Danchira in the Ga South District of the Greater Accra Region of Ghana on 5th July, 2024.

The Court delivered its judgement titled NII GAMU OSMANU TACKIE OKAI I & 4 others v LANDS COMMISSION & 4 others. The High Court upheld the claims of the Plaintiffs who were represented by the Emmanuel Bright Atokoh of EBA Law Consult.

The Court in its over 3-hour judgement meticulously written and read in open court declared title of the above acreage of land at Danchira on the Plaintiffs in the suit. The Court held that the entries in the Registry of the Lands Commission in favour of the grantors of the Defendants in the matter were done mistakenly. The Court also held that the issuance of a Land Certificate to the 2nd and 5th defendants were done in contravention of law and the meaning and effect of some judgements delivered by the Supreme Court in earlier years which covered just a portion of the huge tract of the vexed land.

The Court thus brought up for cancellation, consistent with the prayers of the Plaintiffs, the land title registration numbered GA 51333. The Court thus ordered for recovery of possession of all the 13,081.8 acres of the vexed land by the Plaintiffs family.

Consequentlythe Court in the pedagogic voice of Abodakpi J. ordered the Survey and Mapping division of the 1st defendant registrar of lands to draw a judgment plan in favour of the Plaintiffs and similar plan to be drawn over some 692.22 acres of Danchira lands in favour of the Defendants who an earlier High Court decision affirmed their possessory interest in the said portion of land.

The court ordered for General Damages of 300,000 for trespass and a cost of 200,000 cedis against the 2nd to 5th defendants after listening to submission on cost.

The Court had its judgement in two parts. The first part devoted the attention of the judgement to claims of estoppel rem judicatem which had the potential to deal a death blow to the claims of the Plaintiffs. The Court efficiently laid out the factors for the grounding of the prescriptive legal hurdle to the claims of the Plaintiffs.

The Defendants in the case under the legal bar of estoppel rem judicatem suggested to the Court that a High Court judgement under the hand of the learned Tanko Amadu (as he then was) constituted a bar against the claims of the Plaintiffs as the court entertaining the claims their will amount to a re-litigation of the matter.

The Court applied itself to other decisions of the Appellate Courts concerning the decision of Amadu Tanko J. and concluded that the hurdle of estoppel rem judicatem could not be mounted against the claims of the Plaintiff family.

The second part of the Judgement was on claims of fraud and estoppel by conduct. Justice Abodakpi was of the considered view, after laying out the law of evidence on proof of fraud in civil matters and ingredients of fraud, opted not to hold the view held by the plaintiffs that the urging on the Lands Commission the judgement of the High Court by Amadu Tanko leading to the registration of the supposed interest of the grantors of the defendants in the registry of the Lands Commission was fraudulent.

His Lordship opted to view the wrong entry in the Lands Commission based on the earlier judgements of the court as that done by a mistake and not a fraudulent act.