DUAH VRS. LANDS COMMISSION AND ANOTHER (FAL/792/2015) [2023] GHAHC 589 (13 November 2023)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ACCRA LAND DIVISION ‘9’ HELD ON MONDAY THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023, BEFORE HER LADYSHIP, NABEELA NAEEMA WAHAB J. (MS.) SUIT NO. FAL/792/2015 NANA KWAKU DUAH - PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT (Suing per His Lawful Attorney Samuel Esson Jonah) VRS 1. LANDS COMMISSION - DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS 2. YAW BOAKYE BACKGROUND R U L I N G The Plaintiff instituted an action against the Defendants by a Writ and Statement of Claim filed on 11th August 2015. It is the case of the Plaintiff that by letters dated 12th March 2008, 10th September 2008 and 24th August 2010, the 1st Defendant allocated the subject property to him and by letters dated 18th March 2008 and 6th September 2010, he wrote to accept the allocation. SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 1 of 17 The Plaintiff stated that he paid the purchase price of Five Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand Cedis (GH¢533,000) which the 1st Defendant acknowledged receipt of in its letter of 10th September 2008, however, the 1st Defendant failed to complete the relevant documentation and handover same to him. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that whilst waiting for the relevant documentation, the 2nd Defendant has encroached upon the land and is speedily developing same. The Plaintiff added that he is reliably informed that the 2nd Defendant entered the land with the knowledge and consent of officers of the 1st Defendant. It is thus the case of the Plaintiff that the conduct of the 1st Defendant is intended to overreach him and cause him severe economic loss. By his action the Plaintiff seeks inter alia a declaration of title to the subject property situate at Cantonments in Accra, measuring approximately 1.15 acres, an order of specific performance directed at the 1st Defendant to complete the processing of the documentation in respect of the subject property and an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendants, their privies, assigns and servants from interfering with the subject property pending the final determination of the suit. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND DEFENCE The record of the Court indicates that the 1st Defendant entered appearance to the suit. The 2nd Defendant entered conditional appearance which overtime matured into an unconditional appearance in accordance with the Rules of Court. Both Defendants did not file a defence to the action. The record of the Court further indicates that on 24th October 2017, this Court differently constituted directed Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants to file their defence on or before 10th November 2017, however, there is no defence on record as at today. ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 2 of 17 On 12th November 2015, this Court differently constituted granted the Plaintiff’s application for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with the subject land, selling or clogging same pending the final determination of the suit. ORDER APPOINTING SURVEYOR AND SURVEY EXERCISE On 22nd January 2016, the Plaintiff applied to the Court to appoint a surveyor to identify and ascertain the size of the subject land and demarcate its boundaries. The application was considered and granted by the Court on 16th February 2016. The Court appointed the Director of the Survey and Mapping Division of the 1st Defendant’s Lands Commission as surveyors for the survey work. For the purpose of the survey exercise, the 2nd Defendant filed survey instructions on 11th May 2016 and relied on attached site plans. The Plaintiff on the other hand applied to the Court pursuant to Order 21 Rule 10 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C. I. 47) for an order directed at the 1st Defendant to produce the site plan in respect of the subject land allocated to the Plaintiff. In an affidavit in support of the application, the Plaintiff stated that the site plan required by the Plaintiff, for the survey exercise ordered by the Court was in the possession of the 1st Defendant. APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS, EXPRESSION OF INTEREST OF THE 2ND DEFENDANT FOR THE MATTER TO BE SETTLED AMICABLY OUT OF COURT AND ORDER BY THE COURT FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE THE SITE PLAN OF THE SUBJECT LAND. On 7th June 2023, Counsel for Plaintiff filed an application for directions. The issues stated by Counsel for Plaintiff in the application for directions for consideration by the Court and determination in the case are: 1(a) Whether or not the Plaintiff is the beneficial owner of the subject land, SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 3 of 17 1(b) Whether or not the conduct of the Defendants amounts to trespass, 1(c) Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to an order of specific performance, 1(d) Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to an order for costs inclusive of legal fees and 2. Any other issues arising from the pleadings. On 15th June 2016 when the application for directions was to be heard, the Court adjourned the matter to 5th July 2016 to afford the Defendants an opportunity to file a defence to the suit. There is no indication on record that on 5th July 2016, the application for directions was heard. The record of the Court indicates that on that date the Court considered the application filed by Counsel for Plaintiff seeking an order directed at the 1st Defendant to produce the site plan of the subject land to the Plaintiff and granted the application. The record of the Court also indicates that on that date, Counsel for 2nd Defendant informed the Court that she had not filed a Defence to the action because her Client had informed her that the matter had been settled between the Parties. Counsel for Plaintiff denied knowledge of any settlement. CONDUCT OF THE SURVEY EXERCISE AND REPORT OF THE COURT APPOINTED SURVEYOR The 1st Defendant failed to comply with the Order of the Court given on 5th July 2016 to produce site plans of the subject land to the Plaintiff. Thus, on 23rd November 2016, the Court made another order directed at the 1st Defendant to provide or release the site plan to the Plaintiff. By a letter on record dated 30th January 2017, addressed to the 1st Defendant and copied to the Registrar of the Court, Counsel for Plaintiff wrote to the Executive Secretary of the 1st Defendant Lands Commission and informed him of his intention SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 4 of 17 to apply to the Court for an order to commit him to prison for contempt of Court for his failure to comply with the orders of the Court to release the site plans in respect of the subject land to the Plaintiff. Thereafter, by a letter dated 24th February 2017, addressed to the Plaintiff and copied to the Registry of the Court, the 1st Defendant forwarded two site plans to the Plaintiff and on 8th May 2017, the Plaintiff filed survey instructions with attached site plans. On 10th January 2018, Counsel for Plaintiff applied to the Court for leave to pay for the cost of the survey exercise. Counsel for the Plaintiff informed the Court that the 2nd Defendant had failed to pay for same and this was delaying the matter. The Court heard and granted the application on 13th February 2018. By a letter dated 24th April 2018, the Director of the Survey and Mapping Division of Lands Commission informed the Court that although the Plaintiff had paid his fees and that of the 2nd Defendant, the survey exercise had not been undertaken because the 2nd Defendant had not shown up at its office and efforts by his Office to obtain the contact details of the 2nd Defendant had proved futile. Eventually on 5th March 2020, the Court received a report of the Court appointed surveyor dated 5th March 2020 together with an attached composite plan. The report of the Court appointed surveyor shows the boundaries of the Plaintiff’s land and indicates that the 2nd Defendant has encroached on the Plaintiff’s land. STRIKING OUT OF SUIT FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION On 9th November 2020, the suit was struck out by Registrar Summons for want of prosecution. Thus, the case was at a stage at which the report of the Court appointed surveyor had been submitted, an application for directions filed by Counsel for Plaintiff was to be heard and directions given for the further conduct of the case when the suit was struck out. SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 5 of 17 APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR THE SUIT TO BE RESTORED TO THE CAUSE LIST. Two years and seven months after the suit was struck out, the Plaintiff as Applicant, hereafter referred to as “Plaintiff” represented by Counsel filed the instant application on 14th June 2023, seeking an order of the Court for the suit to be restored to the cause list. In the affidavit in support of the application and in a supplementary affidavit in support of same filed on 18th July 2023, Counsel for Plaintiff informed the Court that he has had to depose to the affidavit in support of the application because of the unavailability of the Plaintiff and the urgency of the application. It is the case of the Plaintiff as stated in the affidavit in support of the application that the case had reached directions stage when same was struck out. Counsel explained that the case stalled because the Parties were attempting settlement but unfortunately same has failed. In support of this claim Counsel for Plaintiff relied on letters marked as Exhibit A and Exhibit B and attached to a further supplementary affidavit filed on 26th July 2023 in support of the application. The Plaintiff referred to the processes available on record, relied on the Surveyor’s report of 5th March 2020 and stated that the action was instituted because of the trespass committed by the 2nd Defendant on his land, which trespass is confirmed by the Surveyor’s report. The Plaintiff thus prayed that the action be restored to the cause list so that same may be completely and effectively determined. RESPONSE BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS There were affidavits of service on record which informed the Court that Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants had been served with the application and hearing notice of SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 6 of 17 Court dates, but they did not attend Court and did not file an affidavit in opposition to the application. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION The issue raised for determination by the present application is whether or not the suit struck out in the year 2020 should be relisted or restored to the cause list. APPLICABLE LAW The power of the Court to consider whether or not to grant the present application seeking leave of Court to relist a suit when same has been struck out for want of prosecution is derived from its inherent jurisdiction/ power and there are a number of precedents in support of the exercise of this power of the Court. In the case of Attoh-Quarshie v Okpote [1973] 1 GLR 59 at page 65, Hayfron-Benjamin J, (as he then was) explained the inherent power of the court as follows:— "Inherent power is an authority not derived from any external source, possessed by a court. Whereas jurisdiction is conferred on courts by Constitutions and statutes, inherent powers are those which are necessary for the ordinary and efficient exercise of the jurisdiction already conferred. They are essentially protective powers necessary for the existence of the court and its due functioning. They spring not from legislation but from the nature and constitution of the court itself. They are inherent in the court by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties before it. The scope of inherent powers, however, cannot be extended beyond its legitimate and circumscribed sphere. The safest guidelines are precedents." (Emphasis added). From the explanation given in Atto Quarshie v Okpote (supra), the Court finds that: o the jurisdiction of the court to consider whether or not the instant action is to be restored to the cause list is inherent in a Court by virtue of its duty to do justice between the SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 7 of 17 parties before it, thus, the circumstance of each case is to be considered in a bid by the Court to do justice between the parties before the Court. o A Court cannot extend the scope of this power or authority beyond its legitimate and circumscribed sphere. o The safest guidelines to the circumscribed sphere or legitimate limits of the authority are in precedents. To exercise its jurisdiction within the circumscribed limits, this Court considered a number of precedents: In the case of Nyarko and Others vs. Lutterodt [1984–86] 1 GLR 437-440 the Court of Appeal observed that there is no time limit provided in the Rules of Court for an Applicant to file a motion for a suit to be relisted and stated that: " In every case the terms upon which an appellant is let in for a second time will take account of the inconvenience to the respondent and even to the court, the conduct of the appellant before and since the striking out, the delay in bringing the application, and all other relevant factors". (Emphasis added) In Martey and others v Apeadu [2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 1191, the Defendant appealed against a decision of the High Court in favour of the Plaintiffs. The appeal was however struck out by the Court of Appeal upon a registrar’s summons for non- compliance with the Rules of the Court of Appeal to file written submissions of case within the time stipulated under the rules. The Defendant filed an application in which he prayed the Court of Appeal to re-list the appeal and the Court of Appeal unanimously granted the application and restored the appeal to the cause list for hearing on the merits. Dissatisfied with the grant of the order of re-listing, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court on the sole ground that: “The ruling is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the affidavit evidence on record.” SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 8 of 17 In a judgment of the Supreme Court delivered by Wood JSC (as she then was), the apex Court noted that there was a seven-month delay and held at page 1194 of the report that “…in application of this nature, the first hurdle an applicant has to clear is to show good and sufficient cause of the delay.” (Emphasis added) At page 1196-1197 of the report, the Supreme Court added that in applications of this kind “…The applicant is expected to demonstrate, inter alia, that the period of the delay itself is reasonable and inordinate. Again bare allegations of the reasons for the delay are not sufficient. If those reasons are supportable by credible pieces of evidence, these must be made available for the court’s consideration. This is what is meant by “proof in law”. So for example, an applicant who alleges serious illness must produce a medical certificate in support of the claim.” (Emphasis added) At page 1198 of the report the Supreme Court also stated that “good faith is another of conditions which must be satisfied”. The Supreme Court noted and stated that “Indeed, although good faith, bad faith and candour are matters which are difficult if not impossible to prove by direct or express evidence, these intentions are, nevertheless, provable by inference from proved facts. Therefore, it is from the prompt steps taken by counsel that good faith…may be rightly inferred.” (Emphasis added) The Supreme Court found that the cause attributed by the plaintiff for the initial delay in pursuing the appeal before same was struck out (i.e. filing the statement within the stipulated time) could not be supported by the available affidavit evidence. The Court stated that the Court of Appeal “had to look out for tangible, sound or convincing excuses or reasons for the delay, not mere conjectures, speculations or what appears on the surface to be so” and held that the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal was not supported by the evidence, was palpably wrong. The Court stated that “unfortunately, we find a total lack of candour and bona fide on the part of the defendant” and the “inordinate delay of seven months with all the attendant circumstances, justifies a refusal of the prayer for relisting.” SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 9 of 17 The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal restoring the suit to the cause list. In the case of Sappor v WIGATAP LTD [2007-2008] SCGLR 676 at 684 the Supreme Court similarly held per Georgina Wood CJ (as she then was) that: In motions for re-listing, the applicant must provide a good and sufficient reason for his or her absence from Court. Furthermore, an applicant must demonstrate on the face of the affidavit that he or she had an arguable and not frivolous case on appeal. In that regard, the party does not discharge the burden by merely pointing to the fact that he or she had an appeal pending. At page 685 of the report, the Supreme Court referred to its previous decision in Martey and others v Apeadu (supra) and emphasized that in motions of this kind, the Applicant must demonstrate utmost good faith. ANALYSIS AND OPINION From the above-cited authorities this Court considers that in determining whether or not to grant the present application, the matters for the Court to consider are: The conduct of the Plaintiff before the suit was struck out, the conduct of the Plaintiff after the suit was struck out, inconvenience to the Defendants or the Court, delay in filing the application, whether or not the action is not frivolous on the face of the affidavit and the peculiar circumstances of the case. CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE SUIT WAS STRUCK OUT In the case of Attiyyatul Aziz Abdulla vs. Joseph Amon Kotey, Richard Hlormador [Unreported; Suit No GJ/1088/2016, 12 July 2019; HC], His Lordship Justice Kweku T. SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 10 of 17 Ackaah-Boafo J. as he then was referred to the case of Nyarko and Others vs. Lutterodt (supra) and stated at paragraph 20 of his Ruling that: “[20] Undoubtedly, from the statement of law stated above, in my respectful opinion, an Applicant applying to relist a suit/application which is struck out must provide good reason (s) for the delay that lead to the striking out. Secondly, in considering whether or not to grant the application, the Court ought to have the interest of the Respondent in mind and ask itself would the Respondent be prejudiced should the application be allowed and granted? And finally, the Applicant's previous conduct also ought to be considered. In other words, was the Applicant diligent in prosecuting the case such that he/she deserves the Court's sympathy and a second chance?” (Emphasis added) This Court notes that Counsel for the Plaintiff filed many processes whilst the suit was pending to ensure that the matter could be completely and effectively determined. In particular, the Court has considered in this regard the processes and letters by Counsel for Plaintiff on record by which the Plaintiff obtained the site plans required from the 1st Defendant, which enabled the Plaintiff to file Survey instructions for the survey exercise ordered by the Court to be undertaken. The Court also considered that in January 2018, Counsel for the Plaintiff applied to the Court for leave to pay the fees of the survey work that was to be paid by the 2nd Defendant to facilitate the exercise as the 2nd Defendant who filed survey instructions in 2016 had failed to pay the required survey fees. The Court also considers that after the survey instructions were filed, the case stalled naturally for it was not until 5th March 2020 that the report of the surveyor which would assist the Plaintiff establish his case and assist the Court to make a determination of whether or not the Plaintiff is the beneficial owner of the land described on the Writ and Statement of Claim was filed. SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 11 of 17 In the opinion of the Court, the Applicant was diligent in prosecuting the case before same was struck out. DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPLICATION AND CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT SINCE THE STRIKING OUT. The present application has been filed two years and seven months after the suit was struck out. In the affidavit in support of the application it is stated that a legal practitioner at the law firm of Plaintiff’s Counsel deposed to the affidavit in support of the application for the reason that Counsel for Plaintiff appreciated the urgency associated with the matter and the Plaintiff was unavailable. The Court however notes that in the case of Sam vrs. Noah & Others Part I (1992-93) GBR 261, the Supreme Court held that the delay of almost two years and three months in bringing an application for extension of time to appeal was too long "The appellants' plea of illiteracy was no excuse, as was the alleged ill-health of the first defendant-appellant of which proof was lacking.” (Emphasis added) In Sam vrs Noah & Others Part I (supra), the Supreme Court also cited with approval the Privy Council decision in the case of Ratman vrs. Cumarasamy (1965) 1 WLR 8, at page 12, where the Applicant was four days out of time in fulfilling conditions of appeal and the Privy Council held that: “… in order to justify a court in extending the time during which some step in procedure requires to be taken, there must be some material upon which the court can exercise its discretion.” (Emphasis added) In the present case, the application has been filed two years and seven months after the suit was struck out. In view of the above-cited authorities, and as held by the Supreme Court in Sappor v WIGATAP LTD (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the Plaintiff in the instant case does not discharge the burden by merely stating that he acknowledges the urgency associated with the matter. SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 12 of 17 From the affidavit in support of the application, it is the case of the Plaintiff as stated by his lawyer that the delay in filing the present application has been occasioned by the fact that the parties were attempting an amicable settlement out of Court. Counsel for Plaintiff added that the efforts at settlement have failed. In support of the claim that the Parties were attempting an amicable settlement out of Court, the Plaintiff relied on letters attached to the further supplementary affidavit and marked as Exhibit A and B. The Court finds that Exhibit A is a letter written by Counsel for Plaintiff dated 17th July 2023 requesting Counsel for 2nd Defendant to confirm that the parties had been engaged in efforts at an amicable settlement for the period that the matter or suit was struck out. Counsel for Plaintiff stated in the further supplementary affidavit in support of the application that Exhibit B is a letter dated 19th July 2023 written by Counsel for 2nd Defendant in answer to his letter attached and marked as Exhibit A. The Court finds that Exhibit B is a letter written by Counsel for the 2nd Defendant, however, it states that “the parties have been making attempts to settle and … the prospects for settlement are still high.” Exhibit B confirms the attempts at settlement but does not confirm that attempts at settlement have failed as stated by Counsel for Plaintiff in the affidavit in support of the application. Exhibit B indicates that the prospects of settlement are high. The Court finds that no evidence was provided by Counsel for the Plaintiff in support of the claim that attempts at settlement have failed and there is no evidence as to how long ago the Plaintiff realized this so that the Court can ascertain whether or not the present application has been filed timeously. SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 13 of 17 The Court has however considered that it may well be that Counsel for the Plaintiff is of the considered opinion that attempts at settlement have failed as settlement discussions have been ongoing for some years now, per Exhibit B and yet no agreement has been reached. In view of the diligence by Counsel for Plaintiff in conducting the suit before same was struck out, the Court finds it reasonable in the absence of contrary evidence that the present application has been filed late because there have been ongoing attempts at settlement by the parties which have not resolved the matter after a number of years and for which reason the Plaintiff has concluded that the attempts at settlement have failed. INCONVENIENCE TO THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS From the case of Nyarko and Others vs. Lutterodt (supra) relied on in Attiyyatul Aziz Abdulla vs. Joseph Amon Kotey, Richard Hlormador (supra), the inconvenience that the Defendants may suffer is also a factor to be considered in determining whether or not an application for an order to relist a suit should be granted. In the instant case however, the Court finds that the Defendants would not be prejudiced if the application is granted. They have not filed a Defence to the action and have not filed an affidavit in opposition to the present application. OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS From the decision in Nyarko and Others vs. Lutterodt (supra), in addition to the inconvenience to the respondent and even to the court, the conduct of an Applicant before and since the striking out, the delay in bringing the application, a Court may consider other relevant factors in determining whether or not a suit should be relisted. Arguable Case, Not Frivolous SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 14 of 17 As stated in the case of Sappor v WIGATAP LTD (supra) whether or not the Plaintiff in this case can demonstrate on the face of the affidavit that he had an arguable and not frivolous case is a relevant factor to be considered. The Court finds that from the report of the Surveyor which Counsel for Plaintiff referred to in his affidavit in support of the application, the case which has been struck out was not frivolous for the report of the surveyor and composite plan indicates the boundaries of the land the Plaintiff claims was allocated to him by the 1st Defendant and also indicates trespass by the 2nd Defendant. Peculiar circumstances of the case. The Court finds that the efforts made by Counsel for the Plaintiff during the pendency of the suit to ensure that the matter could be heard and determined on its merits may be regarded as peculiar circumstances of the case. The amount of time it took for the Court appointed surveyor to submit the report and composite plan is also a peculiar circumstance. The Court also considers that it is a peculiar circumstance of this case that after all these years, Counsel for 2nd Defendant still states in Exhibit B that the parties are still making efforts at settlement. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and the affidavit evidence relied on by the Plaintiff, the Court is of the considered opinion that there is basis upon which it can exercise its discretion in favour of the Plaintiff. So that the Parties may file Terms of Settlement which may be adopted by the Court as a Consent Judgment or so that the Plaintiff may be able to proceed with the action if he is of the opinion that after all these years, attempts at settlement will not yield a positive outcome, the Court is of the considered opinion that the present application should be granted. SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 15 of 17 CONCLUSION The application filed on 7th June 2023 is granted and the Court orders that the action be restored to the cause list. [SGD] NABEELA NAEEMA WAHAB (MS) J. (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) COUNSEL KWAME BOAFO AKUFFO WITH AUDREY TWUM FAFANYO GIDISU AND FRANCIS ANIABA FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT – PRESENT COUNSEL FOR 1ST DEFENDANT – ABSENT NII AKWEI BRUCE THOMPSON FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT - ABSENT SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 16 of 17 CASES REFERRED TO: 1. Sappor v WIGATAP LTD [2007-2008] SCGLR 676 2. Martey and others v Apeadu [2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 1191 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Sam vrs Noah & Others [1992] JELR 86102 SC dated 14th July 1992 Nyarko & Another vrs Lutterodt [1984-1986] 1 GLR, 437 Attoh-Quarshie v Okpote [1973] 1 GLR 59 Ratman vrs. Cumarasamy (1965) 1 WLR 8 Attiyyatul Aziz Abdulla vs. Joseph Amon Kotey, Richard Hlormador [Unreported; Suit No GJ/1088/2016, 12 July 2019; HC] SUIT NO: FAL/792/2015 – Nana Kwaku Duah Vrs Lands Commission & Anor Page 17 of 17