�In other words, the Government of Ghana has sat down unconcerned for the subjects of Osu to develop mansions, and to even grant a good chunk of the land to other developers, who have constructed permanent structures on the land.�Justice Ocran
The Life of Achimota School, arguably one of the best, if not the best Senior High School in Ghana, and that of the Achimota Forest, is under serious threat, unless the government intervenes and uses the due process of the law to reverse the takeover of almost half of the lands belonging to the two institutions by Nii Ako Nortei, described in court as the Mankralo, or acting Chief of the Osu division of the Ga State
According to information available to The Chronicle, the takeover of the school land emanated from a court ruling, which was not properly defended by the Lands Commission. Nii Ako Nortei, with Dr. Josiah Aryeh as his counsel, filed a writ at an Accra High Court against the Lands Commission for the reclamation of 172.68 acres, which is part of Achimota School lands and the Achimota Forest.
According to the plaintiff, the land was acquired by the colonial government on 17th March 1922 for �extension of college site�, under certificate of Title LS No.43/27, but, according to him, it has not been utilised for the purpose it was acquired.
The plaintiff contended that given the fact that the land had not been utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired, the Osu Stool had a right or pre-emption, or first acquisition under Article 20 clause 6 of the 1992 Constitution.
The plaintiff pleaded further that the Osu Stool and its subjects have, since 1922, remained in adverse possession, and the said adverse possession has been largely through the cultivation of crops and vegetables, as well as erection of permanent settlement and residence structures, and these activities are open and adverse to the acquired ownership by the government.
This claim by the plaintiff, surprisingly, was not challenged by the defence counsel. The Lands Commission, according to Justice Anthony Oppong, who heard the case, rather conceded that the facts are not in dispute, and proceeded to advocate for termination of the dispute by legal arguments, which was granted by the court.
During the legal arguments, Dr. Josiah maintained his position that since the government compulsorily acquired the land for a specific purpose and failed to use the land for that purpose, the Osu Stool should be given the first chance to repossess.
In his ruling, Justice Oppong noted that the plaintiff made a case that since 1992 their subjects, families, elders, functionaries have not only been in possession of the land, but have been doing acts adverse to the title the government acquired, nonetheless, the government failed to take action.
�Plaintiff stressed that they have been in adverse possession by farming and putting up permanent settlement mansions on the land. This averment was not traversed. All defendants said was that there are mechanics, artisans and squatters, who are presently occupying the land. But what must be observed is that no such mechanic or artisan or squatter has sued the defendant. It is the Osu Stool that claims that the court must intervene to safeguard their possessory interest in the disputed land.
�Essentially, the averment that subjects of Osu Stool have built permanent places of abode on the land without any protest from the government remains contradicted. Indeed, by the conduct or inaction of the government, the subjects of Osu have been encouraged to believe that their title to the land has not been extinguished, and in my view, this court will not interfere in any way that might disturb the right of the people of Osu to occupy the land.
�In other words, the Government of Ghana has sat down unconcerned for the subjects of Osu to develop mansions, and to even grant a good chunk of the land to other developers, who have constructed permanent structures on the land.
�In my view, what plaintiff and its subjects have done on the land for so many years, over 80 years, was adverse and inconsistent with the acquired rights of the government, who failed to do anything by way of protest, or raising the least objection.
�If a person in possession of the land exercises ownership rights adverse to the owner (like what has happened in this case) for a long time, without the owner raising objection or taking steps to protect his rights, the person in such adverse possession attracts the protection of the land,� the learned judge noted.
Justice Oppong further noted in his judgement that the plaintiff, in their supplementary legal submissions filed on 21st April 2011, attached a site plan of the land of approximately 172.68 acres, as land they have been in adverse possession of. �This was served on defendant. Nevertheless, there was no reaction. I, therefore, take it that defendant concedes that plaintiff and its subjects have been in adverse possession of the land contained therein.
�I, therefore, conclude that plaintiff succeeds in the action in part. However, since the law has been established in the case of Wordie and other vs. Awudu Bukari (1976) 2 GLR 317, CA that where the plea of acquiescence and laches succeed, the pleader become entitled to remain in possession, but title cannot be declared in him. I declare plaintiff as entitled to remain possession.
�Accordingly, I enter judgment for plaintiff, and declare that they are entitled to remain in possession of all that piece of land, which is approximately 172.68 acres, as attached to the supplementary legal submissions filed on 21st April 2011. I hereby, by an order of this court, restrain the defendant, their agents, hirelings, workmen, servants, assigns, whomsoever and howsoever described, from dealing with the said land in any way inconsistent with the possessory right of plaintiff,� concludes Justice Oppong�s judgement.
Based on this ruling, The Chronicle established that the plaintiff, Nii Ako Nortey, went and filed application for mandamus at another High Court to compel the defendants (Lands Commission) to plot and register the judgement, and to grant requisite consent and concurrence, and also to accept and process all applications made by the plaintiff.
The application for the mandamus was borne out of the Lands Commission�s refusal to plot the land of which judgement had been given in their favour. Surprisingly, the Lands Commission, which failed to challenge the site plan submitted by the plaintiff during the hearing of the substantive case, resulting in them losing the case, told the court this time, that they failed to plot and register the land for the Nii Ako Nortey because the site plan he submitted did not meet the requirement of LI 1444 of 1996.
The court, presided over by Justice Ocran, regretted that the Lands Commission should have appealed against the ruling of the High Court that sat on the substantive case if they knew that there was a problem with the site plan presented to the court, but sat down for the appeal period granted by law to elapse, before making such a claim.
Justice Ocran, therefore, granted the request made by the plaintiff, and ordered the Lands Commission to plot and register the land in the name of the plaintiff. Based on this ruling, Dr. Josiah Aryeh�s clients sought the assistance of the police to carry out a demolition exercise on the land.
The Chronicle has been told that Platinum Equities Limited had already been given access to the land by Nii Ako Nortey to put up modern apartments, an exercise which is currently ongoing. All efforts made by The Chronicle to contact Mrs. Grace Adom, Headmistress of Achimota School, for her position on the matter, proved unsuccessful.
A source, however, told this reporter that the school is not happy with the development, and plans to petition appropriate authorities to intervene and safeguard the interest of the great school, which had already produced three presidents � Kwame Nkrumah, Jerry John Rawlings and Professor John Evans Atta Mills.
The Daily Graphic early this year quoted the Chief Executive Officer of the Forestry Commission, Mr. Samuel Afari Dartey as saying that �When the Achimota Forest was gazetted in 1930, it had a total size of 494.95 hectares, but �Currently, the size of the forest is 360 hectares. We have lost 134.95 hectares or 27 per cent of the forest.�
Source: Chronicle
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |