The Supreme Court of Ghana on Wednesday 22nd July 2020, finally settled with clarity the ownership of the lands behind the Ghana International Trade Fair, La-Accra (popularly called “Tse Addo”) when the Court presided over by His Lordship Justice V. J. M Dotse unanimously upheld an application for Certiorari brought by East Dadekotopon Development Trust and quashed the judgment of an Accra High Court presided over by Emanuel Amo Yartey J. dated 30th March 2020 in Suit No. LD 0256/17 titled Adolph Tetteh Adjei vrs Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Holy Quaye.
2. In the judgment of 30th March 2020, Amo Yartey J had dismissed a suit by Adolph Tetteh Adjei against Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Holy Quaye (Suit No. LD/0256/17) in respect of Adolph Tetteh Adjei’s land covered by his Land Certificate No. GA 46455 dated 26th February 2015 which Anas Aremeyaw Anas and the Ataa Tawiah Tsinaiatse with their land guards were trying to wrestle from him.
3. When Amo Yartey J’s Judgment was brought to the attention of the Trust (who were not parties in the case before Amo Yartey J), the Trust led by Nii Kwade Okropong I the Chairman immediately brought an application for Certiorari before the Highest Court of the land seeking to quash Amo Yartey J’s judgment as void and of no effect whatsoever.
In the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court delivered by Torkornoo (Mrs.) JSC on 22nd July 2020, the Court upheld the Trust’s application and quashed the said judgment of Amo
Yartey J as a nullity in law and ordered that the Adolph Tetteh Adjei case against Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Holy Quaye should be placed before another judge for continuation and determination.
4. In coming to the above conclusion the Supreme Court said, among other things as follows:
“In the present case, since the ‘judgments’ and ‘holdings’ on which Amo Yartey J arrived at a finding of estoppel per res judicatem were themselves nonexistent, there is no value in allowing the decision of Amo Yartey J to be evaluated for correctness in the Court of Appeal.
We have no difficulty in granting the order of certiorari to quash the decision of Amo Yartey J given on 30th March 2020”.
5. The Supreme Court further stated that: “On the very face of the application, the two judgments cited as grounding estoppel per rem judicatem were judgments that the court knew or ought to have known were non -existent.
The Ofori Atta J decision in the case of Edward Mensah Tawiah, Ewormenyo
Ofoli Kwashie v The Ag Chief Registrar of Lands and The Trustees, East
Dadekotopon Development Trust had been compromised in Terms of Settlement entered as a Consent Judgment in the Court of Appeal.
The only relevant decision in that case that may be cited therefore is the Court of Appeal judgment.
In the same way, the subject matter of Abada J’s decision of 2019, had no relation to the Interested Parties herein who were the parties before Amo Yartey J. The only part of Abada J’s decision of May 2019 in Daniel Ofoli Ewormienyo v. Edward Nsiah Akuetteh and numbered BMISC 720/2015, that applied to the interests and title of the Trust, who the 2nd Interested Party insisted were the head grantors of the 1st Interested Party’s land, had been quashed by the Supreme Court.
The High Court therefore had no reason to even entertain the application on the very face of it. Therein lies the fundamental and grievous error on the face of the decision.
It is no wonder then that to justify consideration of the application, Amo Yartey J ignored the fact that the Supreme Court’s order quashing Abada J’s purported relief (e) removed any linkage between Abada J’s judgment and the Ofori Atta J judgment of 2010.
After ignoring the import of the quashed positive orders, the trial Judge purported to reach into the rest of Abada J’s decision to find a holding that the Court of Appeal Consent Judgment had been set aside on page 26, when the relevant statement on page 26 was crafted in obscure terms directed at no party and no proceeding.
It was not a holding flowing from the claims and issues presented to the Judge to try. From this ‘derived meaning’, the trial Judge then found a revival of the Ofori-Atta J’s judgment, before he could apply this Ofori Atta judgment as a binding precedent to the claims before him.
The entire exercise constituted a ‘fundamental, substantial, material, grave and serious error such as rendered the decision a nullity. ‘See the Supreme Court’s decision in Republic v Court of Appeal; Ex Parte Tsatsu Tsikata 2005 – 2006 SCGLR where the court said that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court ought to be exercised in those manifestly plain and obvious cases, ‘where there are patent errors of
law on the face of the record, which errors either go to jurisdiction or are so plain as to make the impugned decision a complete nullity. ‘(emphasis mine). …
The firm legal position is that consent judgments are binding as contracts, and not even appealable. In order to be free of them, fresh action must be taken by the parties to the consent judgment to vacate them for critical reasons that would invalidate a compromise not contained in the judgment or order.
See Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edition) Volume 26; also Azu Crabbe JSC speaking for the Court of Appeal in In re Arthur, Abakah v Attah-Hagan 1972 1 GLR at page 442, and the High Court decision of Dordzie J as she then was, in Lutterodt v Nyarko 1999-2000 1 GLR 29.
Thus, under no stretch of imagination can a Judge give an unsolicited order setting aside a consent judgment entered into by parties who are not in the suit before him, and without an action that passes stringent conditions being fully tried before him.
With this background, Abada J’s comments regarding consent judgments ‘procured from the court of Appeal or the Supreme Court’ found on page 26 of his judgment cannot even be entertained as lying in the realm of judicial decisions, much more found an order of res judicatam.
The trial judge allowed himself to entertain an application premised on the reversed Ofori Atta judgment in Edward Mensah Tawiah, Ewormenyo ofoli Kwashie v The Ag Chief Registrar of Lands and The Trustees, East Dadekotopon Development Trust, and the quashed Abada J decision in Daniel Ofoli Ewormienyo v. Edward Nsiah Akuetteh and numbered BMISC 720/2015, – as it pertained to La lands
described in the ‘relief e’ that Abada J granted.
This is the error that rendered his
decision a nullity. In conclusion, we must state clearly the following positions for the direction of the parties involved in these cases.
1. Following the judgment entered by the Court of Appeal in Edward Mensah Tawiah, Ewormenyo Ofoli Kwashie v The Ag Chief Registrar of Lands and The Trustees, East Dadekotopon Development Trust, the Ofori Atta 2010 judgment ceased to have force of law. It was reversed in its entirety.
Following the quashing of the ‘relief e’ in Abada J’s 2019 judgment in Daniel Ofoli Ewormienyo v. Edward Nsiah Akuetteh and numbered BMISC 720/2015, the remainder of that judgment related only to the first four reliefs that were the subject matter of the claims before the court.
These two judgments cannot therefore provide a foundation for a finding of estoppel per res judicatam in favor of the Interested Parties before us in this suit titled Adolph Tetteh Adjei v Anas Aremeyaw Anas, Holy Quaye Suit No. LD/0256/2017. …
We are satisfied that the time limit for filing processes may not be invoked against the applicant herein given the above circumstances.
Let the proceedings of 30th March 2020 ruling and orders made by Amo Yartey J in suit titled Adolph Tetteh Adjei v Anas Aremeyaw Anas, Holy Quaye Suit No. LD/0256/2017 dismissing the suit be brought up for purposes of being quashed and are hereby quashed.”
6. LEGITIMATE GRANTEES OF THE TRUST ARE THEREFORE ADVISED TO CONTACT THEIR LAWYERS AND OBTAIN COPIES OF THE SUPREME COURT RULING DATED 22ND JULY 2020 FOR THEIR STUDY. GUIDANCE AND PROTECTION OF THEIR LAWFULLY ACQUIRED PROPERTIES.
THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS ALSO ADVISED TO BEWARE OF FRAUDSTERS AND THEIR LAND GUARDS PARADING THE TRUST LANDS DEFRAUDING RECKLESS
PURCHASERS OF LAND OF HUGE SUMS OF MONIES UNDER THE PRETEXT OF SELLING THEM STOLEN PARCELS OF THE TRUST LANDS.
ANY SUCH RECKLESS PURCHASER ACQUIRES NO VALID TITLE TO ANY SUCH LANDS AND WOULD HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME. BE WARNED ACCORDINGLY!
NII KWADE OKROPONG I
CHAIRMAN OF THE TRUST
EMMANUEL ODOI YEMO
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE TRUST
