Immovable Property

Principle Authority

INTERESTS IN LAND
At common law, property rights may be divided into
- interest that give immediate use and occupation to the holder, and
- interest that can be held against somebody in possession or
occupation
Interests that give immediate use and occupation to the holder are
freeholds and leaseholds

Interests which may be held against a person in occupation or

possession include interest under a constructive trust, restrictive
covenants, easements, profit a prendre, licence by estoppel, trusts.

Interests which give immediate use and occupation to holder

A FREEHOLD is an interest in land of an uncertain duration. The
estate in land may be held in fee simple, fee tail or for a term of life
[life interest]

Fee simple is the highest interest in land at common law. The holder of Issiw v Wiabu that [The term “fee simple” as used in English law
the fee simple holds no obligation to anyone. cannot be correctly applied or used when speaking of the highest kind
of tenures obtaining in Ghana]
Fee simple absolute is an estate of indefinite duration, almost in
perpetuity, and will subsist till the current holder dies without heirs Total Oil Products v Manu per Ollenu J [there is no fee simple in
customary land tenure; however a conveyance which purports to
Fee simple conditional is an estate restricted to some specific heirs, convey the fee simple is not thereby void but has the effect of
exclusive of others transferring the highest interest which the transferor has in the land]

Fee simple determinable is an estate that will automatically end and Per Woodman, the fee simple may exist in Ghana in the ff ways;
revert to the grantor if some specified event occurs 1. Where the government acquires land under the statutory
provisions concerning compulsory acquisition and subsequently
Fee simple subject to a condition subsequent gives the grantor the grants a fee simple in such land since all previous titles in the
power to end the estate if some specified event happens land are extinguished by virtue of the acquisition.;
2. Where a stool holding the allodial (or absolute) title in land
Fee simple defeasible is an estate that ends either because there are no which is not subject to any other interest alienates its title
more heirs of the grantee or because of a special limitation, condition outright; and
subsequent, or executory limitation 3. Where a person holding a customary-law usufruct (or
determinable estate) alienates his interest by a deed of
conveyance in fee simple, which has the effect of passing his
entire interest.

British Bata Shoe Company v Roura & Forgas [suggests that the fee
simple exists in Ghana by tracing its history in W.A.]

Life Interest is an interest measured by the duration of the holder’s or

another named person’s life.

The holder of the interest cannot create an interest in the land which
subsists longer than his/her life.

It’s a freehold because the demise of the holder is not certain.

Remainder is a future interest arising in a third person after the natural

termination of the preceding interest

Remainderman is a person who holds or is entitled to receive a

remainder

Fee Tail is an estate which is heritable by only specified descendants of

the original grantee, usually a lineal descendant, and which endures
until the current holder dies without issue

LEASEHOLD INTEREST is a possessory estate in land whose

duration is certain or capable of being made certain.

Fixed term lease is a tenancy whose duration is known from the

moment of its creation

© TT 2012
Page 1 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

Periodic tenancy is an estate which automatically continues for

successive periods unless terminated at the end of a period by notice

Constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed against a person Ussher v Darko

who has a legal interest in property but not the beneficial interest and
who tries to obtain the property falsely.

Interests which may be held against a person in occupation or possession

PROFITS A PRENDRE is a right or privilege to go on another
person’s land and take away something of value from the soil or from
the products of its soil
Naturally growing products including salt, mushrooms, snails

EASEMENT is an interest in land owned by another person consisting

in the right to use or control the land, or an area above or below it, for a
specific limited purpose. An easement may last forever but doesn’t give
the holder the right to possess, take from, improve or sell the land.

i.e. right of user

e.g. right of way, right of entry to the dominant estate, right of light and
air, right to water, right to do some act that would otherwise amount to
a nuisance, a right to place or keep something on the servient estate.

Dominant estate is the land benefitting from the easement

Servient estate is the land burdened by the easement

LICENCE BY ESTOPPEL is an implied licence usually based on the

patentee’s oral grant of a right or interest that cannot be derogated by
the patentee’s later acts

MORTGAGE is a contract of title to property that is given to the Mortgages Act

mortgagee as security for an obligation (the payment of a debt or the
performance of a duty) and that will become void upon payment or
performance according to stipulated terms

Contrast with a Pledge where only possession is transferred

RENT CHARGE is the right to receive an annual sum from the

income of land, usually in perpetuity, and to retake possession if the
payments are in arrears

TRUST is a property interest held by one person at the request of

another for the benefit of a third party. In other words, it is a right
enforceable in equity to the beneficial enjoyment of property to which
another person holds the legal title.

Tenure is a right, term or mode of holding land in subordination to a

superior i.e. rights and obligations of the holder of the land

Estate is the amount, degree, nature and quality of a person’s interest in

land or other property

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
Restrictive covenants are agreements restricting the use of freehold land Tulk v Moxhay [square garden]
which are enforceable not only between the original contracting parties London City Council v Allen
but also especially in the case of unregistered lands, between the
assignees of the respective lands.

The purchaser of land with notice of a restrictive covenant affecting it Tulk v Moxhay [keep and maintain land in an open state, uncovered
would be restrained from using the land in a way inconsistent with the with any buildings, in a neat and ornamental order]
covenant…cuz contrary to conscience

The restrictive covenant may be enforced against any occupier of the

land which carries the burden of the covenant except a bona fide

© TT 2012
Page 2 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

purchaser of the legal interest for value without notice of the restrictive
covenant [because it’s an equitable remedy]

A squatter is not a purchaser hence a squatter is bound by a restrictive S26(3), NRCD [owners and occupiers are bound by restrictive
covenant whether or not he had notice of it covenants]

1. The covenant must be negative in substance i.e. it prevents the Tulk v Moxhay [covenant not to build on the land]
covenantor from doing something [it doesn’t require the
expenditure of money]

2. It must be made for the benefit of the land i.e. at the time of London City Council v Allen [part of the land had been mortgaged
making the covenant there must be land which carries the burden and conveyed on redemption. The person who redeemed (Allen’s wife)
of the covenant and land which benefits from it. Thus, where the then breached the covenant. Held that LCC didn’t have an interest in
covenantee parts with all the land for the benefit of which the the land anymore to enforce the RC]
covenant was taken, he cannot enforce the covenant against
successors in title to the original covenantor. He may however
have a cause of action against the original covenantor on the basis
of privity of contract
a. Leases [due to right of reversion]
b. Mortgages [due to equitable interest]
c. Building scheme [based on the intention of the vendor]

3. Burden of the covenant must be intended to run with the

covenantor’s land. Thus where the covenant is worded such that
it’s personal to the covenantor, the assignee isn’t bound. However
if covenant is made by the covenantor for himself, his successors
and assigns, then it will run with the land

There is a presumption under Ghanaian law that a covenant S26(1), NRCD 175
relating to an interest in land of a covenantor shall, unless a
contrary intention is expressed, be deemed to be made by the
covenantor on behalf of himself, his successors and persons
deriving title from him and shall be enforced against them to the
same extent as the covenantor.

Additionally, in the case of restrictive covenants, successors in S26(3), NRCD 175

title include owners and occupiers for the time being of the land
(sub-lessees???)

In the case of registered land, a restrictive covenant shall be noted S84, Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDCL 152)
in the land register and unless it is so noted, it will not be binding
on any proprietor of the land or interest burdened by it other than a
party to the agreement.

4. The burden of a restrictive covenant runs in equity only. Thus the

only equitable remedy appropriate in the event of breach is an
injunction. Since it’s a discretionary remedy, it will not be granted
if it will be inequitable to do so.

Utility is to keep value of the property

A restrictive covenant is discharged if the land benefitted and the land

burdened come into common ownership

CO-OWNERSHIP
Arises when two or more person acquire interest in the same property;
Fenuku v John Teye [husband and wife bought property]
• It may be created when co-owners jointly contribute to buy the
property; Owusu-Asiedu v Adomako [defendant claimed deed of gift made to
• when a gift or will is made by the same grantor inter vivos or by husband]
intestacy Agyentoa v Owusu [children inherited by PNDCL 111]
• by will to two or more persons; by the operation of law (PNDCL
111)
The primary feature of co-ownership is unity of possession, thus each is
entitled to possession of the land and no one can sue a joint tenant for
trespass

© TT 2012
Page 3 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

Ultimate determination of type of co-ownership is the intention of the Biney v Biney [settlor didn’t want his family to take the land by
acquirers with respect to land bought by two or more persons, and the operation of customary law but for it to go to his children and their
intention of the donor or grantor in connection with land which is gifted heirs forever]

Where the intention of the parties or grantors cannot be ascertained, the S14(3), Conveyancing Decree, 1973 (NRCD 175)
law will imply that they hold the property as tenants in common

There are two type of co-ownership in land under common law – joint
tenancy and tenancy in common
Joint tenancy
Arises when land is conveyed to two or more people without any words to show that they are to take separate and distinct shares.

Essential characteristics
- Right of survivorship implying when one joint tenant dies, his interest passes to the surviving tenants and so on until there is a sole tenant
who becomes entitled to the whole of the property as sole owner. there can be no joint tenancy with a corporation because it can never die.
The right of survivorship takes precedence over any disposition in a will. Interest under joint tenancy cannot pass under a will or intestacy.
- Four unities
1. Unity of possession: each tenant is entitled to possession of every part of the land. no one joint tenant can appropriate any part of the
property exclusively to himself. Where rent is received from a grantee, it must be shared equally
2. Unity of interest: the type, nature and duration of the interest must be same for all joint tenants. Thus one joint tenant can’t have a
leasehold while the other has a freehold.
3. Unity of title: the instrument or act or transaction creating the interest must be same. If it’s by will all the tenants must have received
their interest from the same will.
4. Unity of time: the interest of each tenant must vest at the same time i.e. capable of being enjoyed by all the joint tenants at the same
time

A joint tenancy is created when land is conveyed to two or more people Fenuku v John Teye [inter temporal law applicable to the acquisition
without any words of severance; at common law the presumption is that of the property was the common law presumption of joint tenancy]
a joint tenancy has been created

It may also be created by will or grant inter vivos

The common law presumption of a joint tenancy has been reversed in S46, NRCD 175 [commencement date of decree]
Ghana with the passage of the Conveyancing Decree

A joint tenancy may be severed through alienation or sale without the Dacosta v Ofori Transport [the son did not need to sign the deed
knowledge, consent and concurrence of the other joint tenant(s) in selling the reversion of his mother and sisters in order to make it
which case the relationship with the one who severs becomes a tenancy valid]
in common

A joint tenancy may be determined as follows:

a) alienation of potential share inter vivos
b) partitioning either by a voluntary act of all the joint tenants or compulsorily by an order of the court. thus instead of holding an
undivided share in the whole land each person holds a divided share equally
c) sale
d) homicide; interest of deceased isn’t extinguished but passes to his estate
e) acquisition by one tenant of a greater share
f) mutual agreement
g) conduct which indicates an intention to terminate the tenancy

Tenancy in common
It’s where two or more persons hold the property in undivided share. Only the unity of possession is essential. Thus each tenant has a distinct
share in the property which has not yet been divided among them. As long as the tenancy subsists, no one can claim sole ownership of any part of
the property.

The interest of the tenants may be quite different Dacosta v Ofori Transport [widow and children owned 2/3’s of the
property while deceased’s maternal family owned the other 1/3]

There is no right of survivorship so when a tenant in common dies, his Agyentoa v Owusu [application of PNDCL 111 to deceased son’s
interest passes under a will or intestacy. Where a tenant in common dies estate]
intestate, his interest passes under a will or intestacy

Tenancy in common may be created in the following ways:

- a presumption of tenancy in common by operation of law - s14(3) of NRCD 175; Fenuku v John Teye [common law]
- a conveyance which contains words of severance - Agyentoa v Owusu [“for their use absolutely”]

© TT 2012
Page 4 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

- the determination of a joint tenancy - Dacosta v Ofori Transport [widow and daughters sold their
reversionary interest but son didn’t]
-
LEGAL & EQUITABLE INTEREST IN LAND
A legal interest is created when the form of creating that interest as S1(1) Conveyancing Decree, 1973 (NRCD 175)
prescribed by statute is conformed with. In Ghana, the ff element must
be present;
- it must be in writing
- signed by the transferor or by his agent duly authorised in writing
-
An equitable interest in land is created when there is a failure of form S3(2), NRCD 175
prescribed by law or where the interest is essentially an equitable
interest
- express trust
- by a contract to convey an equitable interest
- estates or interest void at common law for want of correct Djan v Owoo
formalities e.g an oral grant supported by part performance Sbaiti v Samarasinghe
- grant of an interest of a person who has an equitable interest
- grant of an interest which can only exist at equity
- by constructive trust or proprietary estoppel Ussher v Darko

An equitable title is valid against the whole world except equity’s Gyimah & Brown v Ntiri [both parties had equitable interests thus
darling i.e. a bona fide purchaser of the legal interest for value without the first in time rule applied]
notice

An oral grant supported by acts of part performance will create an S3(2), NRCD 175
equitable interest Kotey v Koletey [paid purchase price for land although no lease]
Sbaiti v Samarasinghe [bought building materials to help completion
of the premises]

Where a contract to convey an equitable interest is being relied on, it S2 NRCD 175
should have the following elements Djan v Owoo [there was no purchase price in the receipt hence part
- names of the parties performance not granted]
- description of the property
- purchase price of the property
- signed by the grantor

A contract to create rights in land itself creates an equitable interest Walsh v Lonsdale [although no executed lease, he had moved into
because equity regards as done what ought to be done possession so should abide by terms of contract to create lease]
Sackey v Ashong [although no lease S gave him possession, he
started substantial repairs on house]

Any party relying on an equitable interest should have performed Owusu v Akomah [the assignment being relied on for the action was
his/her side of the covenants and there should be no fraud on his part procured by fraud]
[come with clean hands]

Where a contract for sale or other disposition is not evidenced in S3 of NRCD 175
writing, it might nevertheless be enforced by a decree of specific Sbaiti v Samarasinghe
performance if it had partly been carried into effect Djan v Owoo
Kotey v Kolete

An oral grant gives a legal title under customary law S3(1)(h), NRCD 175

The receipts evidencing purchase of property is a registrable instrument S24(1) of Act 122
Djan v Owoo

Equity would not allow a party who stood by to allow the other to Kotey v Kolete [block factory, washing bay, stores]
spend money to develop his property to take advantage of the situation

Specific performance would be granted where it would be fraudulent on S3(2), NRCD 175
the part of the defendant to take advantage of the contract not being in Koglex Ltd (No. 2) v Field [agreement for a lease, part of rent paid,
writing lessor unlawfully repudiates agreement but doesn’t refund the amount
paid, specific performance granted]
Kotey v Kolete

Notices

© TT 2012
Page 5 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

Constructive notice: Where there is a prior interest that would be s50, Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDCL 152), any person
revealed by an appropriate search of the public records affecting land who acquires land or interest in land shall be deemed to have had
title, a subsequent purchaser is charged with notice of such a prior notice of every entry in the land register which he was entitled to
interest even if he never actually conducts a title search. inspect at the time of the acquisition.

It may be revealed through inspection of land or investigation of title Ussher v Darko [existence of tenants, upon the inspection of the land,
who seller claimed she didn’t know should have put purchaser on
notice]

Imputed notice: Where a special relationship exists between two or Kingsnorth Finance v Tizard [surveyor knew of the mortgagor’s wife
more people; if one has knowledge of a fact (e.g., an agent for a and that should have put plaintiff’s on notice to inquire about the
principal) the other (e.g., the principal) is also deemed to know the fact. existence of any beneficial interest]

Actual notice: knowledge of the prior interest including evidence of S25, Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122); the registration of any
possession on the property such as pillars and the registration of the instrument shall be deemed or constitute actual notice of the
land at the lands registry instrument and of the fact of registration to all persons and for all
purposes, as from the date of registration, unless otherwise provided
in any enactment.

LAW OF LEASES
Nature of Leases
A lease creates between the lessor and the lessee the special
relationship of landlord and tenant. It gives exclusive possession of the
leased land to the lessee but does not divest the lessor of all his interest
in the property concerned. The right of the lessor to regain possession
when the lease comes to an end is known as a reversion.

A lease is a transfer of interest in land S10, NRCD 175 – transfer of an interest in land includes every sale,
lease, gift or other creation or disposition of an interest in land

A lease, being a transfer of an interest in land, must satisfy the S1, NRCD 175
requirement of writing by law in order to create a legal interest

The written lease must be signed by the vendor or his agent authorised S1, NRCD 175
in writing to sign on his behalf – implying if the agent’s authority is
oral, it will be invalid

An instrument other than a will or a judge’s certificate first executed S24(1), Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122)
after the commencement of the Act will have no effect until it’s
registered.

An instrument is any writing affecting land situate in Ghana S36, Act 122

A lease may not have to be in writing if it takes effect in possession and S3(1)(f), NRCD 175
is for a term not exceeding three years [whether or not the lessee is
given power to extend the term

An oral lease may be given effect in equity if it’s followed by acts of S3(1)(h) & s3(2), NRCD 175
part performance and where not performing it will breach the rules of Sbaiti v Samarasinghe
equity Djan v Owoo
Sackey v Ashong

A purported lease may be invalid if its duration is uncertain or if it Lace v Chandler [lease for the duration of the war]
purports to grant a lease in perpetuity

A lease may be transferred inter vivos by the lessee to another person

by way or a sublease or an assignment

Where the lease is assigned, the lessee grants to the assignee the whole
of the residue of the unexpired term of the lease and ceases to be a
lessee under the original lease; the assignee steps into the shoes of the
original lessee (the assignor) and becomes the immediate lessee of the
lessor; a relationship of landlord and tenant develops between the lessor
and the assignee by virtue of privity of estate between them.

There is however no privity of contract between them and the original S23(2,NRCD 175 + Pt III of the 3rd Schedule [there’s an implied

© TT 2012
Page 6 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

lessee may still be liable for all breaches, based on the privity of covenant on the part of the assignee to indemnify the assignor against
contract existing between him and the lessor, despite the assignment of all proceedings, costs, claims, or any breach of the covenants in the
the lease [unless he’s indemnified by the assignee] head lease]

A sublease is created where the lessee grants a term shorter than his
own to another (even if less by one day only); there is both privity of
contract and privity of estate between the lessee and the sublessee as
the sublessee is the lessee’s tenant, however, there is neither privity of
estate or contract between the headlessor and the sublessee

The lessor may also assign his reversion, such assignment will transfer
the lessor’s interest to the assignee subject to the subsisting lease so that
the assignee of the reversion becomes the new lessor of the lessee

The person who alleges a variation in the tenancy agreement assumes Alameddine v PZ
the onus of proving it

Where the landlord and tenant cannot agree on the rent payable, a Chas-Ocloo v Kyei [
competent and qualified rent officer should determine the rent payable.

Agreement for a Lease

An agreement for a lease is where the parties agree on certain terms and
enter into a contract where the intending lessor agrees to create a lease
the intending lessee agrees to take the lease but does not take it

An agreement for a lease does not vest any legal interest in the lessee,
only the possibility of specific performance

Where a contract/agreement for a lease contains all the material terms Walsh v Lonsdale [cotton weaving mill for 7 yrs, yearly tenancy,
i.e. names of the parties, description of the property, term granted, rent agreement for a lease]
payable, any special covenants agreed upon and the signature of the
lessor, it could be specifically enforced under the equitable maxim that Sackey v Ashong [letter proposing terms of lease, no lease, part
‘equity considers as done that which ought to be done’ when one party performance by repairing house]
decides to resile from the contract

An agreement for a lease creates a mere equitable interest which may

be overreached by the bona fide purchaser of the legal interest without
notice of the equitable interest i.e. a person relying on an agreement for
a lease is not in as good a position as one holding an actual lease

Types of leases;
- a lease for a fixed term [duration is settled; it’s certain or capable Lace v Chandler [duration of the war]
of being made certain before it takes effect]
- reversionary lease [to take effect at a future date; to commence
upon the expiration of a previous lease]
- equitable lease [take effect in equity only cuz they lack due form] Gyimah & Brown v Ntiri [part performance]
- concurrent lease [granted to a different lessee to commence before
the expiration of a subsisting lease]

Termination of Leases
1. At common law, by either party giving proper notice in Alameddine v PZ [6 months’ notice in conformity with s17(1h) of
accordance with the stipulations in the lease or implied by law Rent Act for possession of the premises to use for business purposes]
from the circumstances of that lease

2. At common law, in accordance with the express or implied

intentions of the parties based on a condition/event subsequent

3. When the term has run out by effluxion or expiry of the term and
the lessee is expected to give up vacant possession unless a
renewal is granted

4. Forfeiture e.g. where there is denial of tenancy it entitles the Safo v Badu [defendant questioned plaintiff’s title by suing for
landlord to forfeit the lease as it means the tenant has waived any declaration of title]
notice to quit

5. Surrender i.e. yielding up of the interest created by the lease to the

© TT 2012
Page 7 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

immediate reversioner or remainderman

6. By merger i.e. a union of the lease with the reversion immediately

expectant upon the lease where both interests become vested in the
lessee at the same time.
7. By death e.g. where the lessee’s interest is a life interest

The statutory restrictions on termination of leases apply to the lessor Savage v GIHOC [termination by notice; 8 yrs by notice, 15 yrs by
only. Thus a lessee may terminate the lease when his common law right effluxion. Right to terminate had not accrued thus damages to lessor]
to do so accrues. If the lessee wrongly terminates the lease, he may only
be liable in damages for breach of contract

Where a notice to terminate is given, it must

- Show a clear intention to terminate the lease or tenancy on a
specified date
- Be unconditional and unambiguous
- Affect the whole land comprised in the lease or tenancy
- Be adequate according to statute, the agreement or common law

In a periodic tenancy, a valid notice must be given to expire at the end

of a completed period

Once notice has been served on the lessee or tenant to terminate the Bassil v Said Raad [landlord accepted rent after serving a notice to
lease, there is a danger that by subsequently accepting payment of rent, quit on the tenant]
a lessor or landlord will be deemed to have waived his notice and will
have to start all over again should he wish to proceed. To avoid this, the Dhalomal v Puplampu [landlord refused to accept rent from sublessee
notice must state that payment of rent will be accepted after the who came into occupation unlawfully]
expiration of the notice as mesne profits for use and occupation of the
leased premises without prejudice to the lessor’s right to recover
possession

Termination of a lease doesn’t give an automatic right of re-entry or

forfeiture to the lessor, the landlord has to sue for recovery of
possession

A right of re-entry or forfeiture under any provision in a lease for a S29(1), NRCD 175
breach of any covenant, condition or agreement in the lease shall not be
enforceable until;
- the lessor serves notice on the lessee
o specifying the particular breach complained of
o requiring the lessee to remedy the breach where the
breach is capable of remedy
o requiring the lessee to make reasonable compensation in
money for the breach where the breach doesn’t involve
non-payment of rent
- the lessee has knowledge that such notice has been served and the
lessee fails, within a reasonable time to remedy the breach and to
make reasonable compensation to the satisfaction of the lessor

Termination at common law would not entitle the landlord to recover

possession except
S17(1)(a), Act 220
a. Where rent hasn’t been paid after one month of being due

b. An obligation has been broken or not performed S17(1)(b), Act 220

UTC v Karam [tenant sublet premises without consent and
concurrence of landlord, he intended to use it for a restaurant and not
retail only]

c. Tenant or anyone living with him has been guilty of annoyance or S17(1)(c), Act 220
nuisance

d. Tenant or anyone living with him convicted of immoral or illegal S17(1)(d), Act 220
user

e. Deterioration owing to waste by tenant or anyone living with him S17(1)(e), Act 220

© TT 2012
Page 8 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

f. Tenant given notice to quit and landlord has contracted to sell or S17(1)(f), Act 220
let the premises

g. Reasonably required by landlord as dwelling house for himself, his S17(1)(g), Act 220
family or his employees
Saka v Lokumal [premises sought for daughter who was relocating to
Ghana]

Acquaah v Larbi [granting an order of possession to enable mother

live on premises will put unusual hardship on D to find alternative
accommodation. In any case premises not constructed as dwelling
house]

h. Where tenancy has expired and is reasonably required by landlord S17(1)(h), Act 220
for business and he’s given no less than 6 months’ notice Alamedine v PZ
UTC v Karam

i. Lease expired thus statutory tenant, landlord needs to pull down S17(1)(i), Act 220
the building, remodel or engage in redevelopment all of which
can’t be done with the statutory tenant in possession Asamoah v Zweness [remodel for seamstress niece]

Seraphim v Pacific Stores [D claimed intention not genuine,

unimportant if landlord complied with the requirements of the Act]

j. Where premises let to employee and employment has ceased S17(1)(j), Act 220

k. Where landlord let substantially furnished premises he was living S17(1)(k), Act 220
in due to absence from Ghana or the area where premises are and
there’s a conveyance to that effect that it’s for only the term he’s
away

A member of the landlord's family is defined to mean, "the father or S36, Act 220
mother, a wife, husband, child, brother or sister, or such other person as Owusu v Asante [nephew not included in definition of family
may be prescribed members]

Where a lessor is proceeding by an action to enforce a right of re-entry S30, NRCD 175
or forfeiture under any provision in a lease or for non-payment, the Chas-Ocloo v Kyei [tenant attempted to pay increased rent to
lessee and also the sublessee may apply to the court for relief landlord and to the court but both refused and court granted relief.
Overturned]
Periodic Tenancies
A periodic tenancy is a tenancy which automatically renews itself at the
end of each completed period. It may continue indefinitely as long as
the landlord-tenant relationship subsists. It’s terminated upon proper
notice being given by either party to the other

The method of computing rent is what determines the type of tenancy Alamedine v PZ [granted monthly tenancy but claimed was asked to
created and not the mode of payment of rent pay rent quarterly and half-yearly]

A yearly tenancy arises by implication of law whenever a person

occupies land with the owner’s consent and pays rent fixed with
reference to the year which the landlord accepts

A yearly tenancy may be terminated by any length of notice agreed

between the parties. Where the parties do not fix notice, at least 6
months’ notice expiring at the end of a completed year of tenancy must
be given

When a valid notice is given, it automatically terminates the tenancy on Dagger v Shepherd
the date stated and it cannot be withdrawn. An agreement to withdraw a
notice does not invalidate the notice but operates to create a new
tenancy in place of the old one

Where the period of a tenancy is less than a year, it may be terminated Lemon v Lardeur
by giving notice for the full period expiring at the end of a completed
period e.g. a quarterly tenancy may be terminated by giving a full

© TT 2012
Page 9 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

quarter’s notice. Alternatively the parties may agree the length of notice

A tenancy at will is created when a person takes possession of the land Safo v Badu [tenant at will; living rent free by permission of the
of another, with the owner’s consent, not as agent or a servant, on the owner before his death]
understanding that the term can be terminated at any time by either
party. It cannot survive any of the parties to it and it cannot be assigned

A tenancy at will be terminated by notice by either party, or where the Safo v Badu [tenant instituted an action for a declaration of title to
tenant does some act which is inconsistent with his status as such a the property thereby denying the title of the plaintiff who lawfully
tenant or the landlord does some act which gives an indication that he inherited it by intestacy]
no longer recognises the tenancy

Tenancy at sufferance arises by implication of law when on the

expiration of his tenancy, a tenant holds over without the consent or
dissent of the landlord. He remains in possession as long as the landlord
suffers him to do so i.e. he has no legal or equitable right or title

Statutory Tenancy
statutory tenant means a tenant who— S36, Act 220
(a) remains in possession of premises after the determination by any
means of his tenancy and cannot by reason of the provisions of this Act UTC v Karam
be deprived of such possession by his landlord; or Alameddine v PZ
(b) on the commencement of this Act is in possession of premises of
which he retained possession prior to such commencement by virtue of
any other enactment repealed by this Act; or
(c) is a tenant by virtue of the provisions of subsection (5) of section 17

It’s a tenant whose contractual lease or tenancy has expired at common S29(1)(b), Act 220 [the statutory tenant shall determine the tenancy
law but who retains possession of the leased premises by virtue of the by notice required by law in respect of monthly tenancies]
protection afforded him by the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220). He is entitled
to retain possession practically ad infinitum regardless of the wishes of
the lessor or landlord and he enjoys to all intents and purposes a status
of irremovability.

A statutory tenancy may also be created when an order of ejectment or S17(5), Act 220
for recovery of possession of premises does not affect a sublessee or
sub-tenant by virtue of the fact that the premises were lawfully sublet
before the proceedings for ejectment were commenced.

Where such a sub-tenant remains in possession, he becomes a tenant of S17(6), Act 220
the landlord and consequently a statutory tenant

A sub-tenancy is lawful if it satisfies the requirements of ss1,2,3 of

NRCD 175, s23 of NRCD 175, and s22 of Act 220

A statutory tenant holds the premises as a monthly tenant subject to all S29(1)(a), Act 220
the terms of the expired contractual lease which are applicable to UTC v Karam [tenant became a statutory tenant and can’t be
monthly tenancies and not inconsistent with the Rent Act presumed to have exercised option to renew]

A statutory tenancy terminates upon the death of the statutory tenant or

upon a purported assignment or alienation of his ‘interest’

A statutory tenancy may be terminated where the landlord intends to S17(1)(i), Act 220
remodel the leased premises and the remodelling cannot be done while
the statutory tenant is in possession

Where such a statutory tenant is ejected, he is entitled to first right of S18(1), Act 220
refusal upon the completion of the remodelling Asamoah v Zweness [remodelling was to be done for niece
seamstress]

Covenants
A covenant is a solemn promise which is made by one party to another
with the intention of being bound by it

Privity of contract is where the original covenantor and covenantee are

bound by their contract and all covenants can be enforced by or against

© TT 2012
Page 10 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

each party as long as the contract subsists. A lessee may therefore be

held responsible for breached committed by his successor in title which
is why the assignor of a lease exacts from his assignee an indemnity for
breaches of covenant by the latter.

Privity of estate means the existence of tenure (rights and obligations)

between the landlord and tenant. Thus, where a lessee assigns the
residue of the unexpired term of his lease, the assignee becomes the
new lessee and there automatically arises a privity of estate between
them because there is tenure between them.

Benefits of implied covenants under s22 & s23 attach to the interest of S24, NRCD 175
the implied covenantee and is binding on his assigns

Where a covenant runs with the land i.e. the burden or benefit passes to S25(4), NRCD 175 [run with the land]
the successors in title of the covenantor or covenantee, it is enforceable S25(1) [benefit of covenants = covenantee/lessor & assigns]
by or against the successors in title to the original covenantor and S25(2) [owners and occupiers for the time being i.e. sublessor]
covenantee S26(1) [burden of covenants = covenantor/lessee & assigns]
S26(3) [owners and occupiers for the time being i.e. sublessee]
A covenant relating to an interest in land of the covenantee shall be S25(1)
deemed to be made with the covenantee and his successors in title and
the persons deriving title under him

Successors in title include the owners and occupiers for the time being S25(2)
of the land i.e. sublessor

A covenant relating to an interest in land of a covenantor, unless a S26(1)

contrary intention is expressed, be deemed to be made by the
covenantor on behalf of himself, his successors in title and the person
deriving title under him and shall be enforceable against such
successors to the same extent as against the covenantor

Successors in title in connection with restrictive covenants include the S26(3)

owners and occupiers for the time being i.e. sublessee

The benefits of a covenant and every condition of re-entry shall be S27(1)

attached to the reversionary interest in the land

The obligations of a covenant of the lessor shall be attached to the S28(1)

reversion; any person entitled to the lease may therefore take advantage
of and enforce the obligation

1. An express covenant is one which the parties expressly state in Thome v Barclays Bank
their lease. They bind the original parties to the lease throughout
the subsistence of the lease by virtue of privity of contract

2. The common law implies certain covenants into leases where the Common law
parties are silent on them

3. Where the lease is by way of a conveyance for valuable S22 & s23, NRCD 175
consideration, the Conveyancing Decree implies certain covenants Second & Third Schedules, NRCD 175
into the lease to be performed by both parties

4. Where the lease is preceded by a contract for a lease or is oral, the Sackey v Ashong
‘usual covenants’ are implied into it.
- covenants by the lessee to pay rent;
- to pay taxes, except such as are ultimately charged by statute
on the landlord;
- to keep and deliver up the premises in repair; and
- to allow the landlord to enter and view the state of repair; the
usual qualified covenant by the landlord for quiet enjoyment;
- and a proviso for re-entry on non-payment of rent

Type of Covenant Lessee Authority

Express - pay rent
- assignment, subletting or parting with

© TT 2012
Page 11 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

property
- repair
- insure
Implied at common law - pay rent Common law
- not to commit waste
- pay rates and taxes
- permit lessor to view the premises
Implied by statute - pay rent S23(1) NRCD 175
(only applicable when conveyance is for - permit entry for repairs to adjoining Part I, Third Schedule, NRCD 175
valuable consideration) premises
- no alterations or additions to the
premises
- not to assign, sublet or part with
possession without consent
- not to commit injury to the walls
- repair
- not to use it for immoral or illegal
purposes
- not to commit nuisance or annoyance
- yield up premises in tenantable repair at
the determination of the lease
S23(2), NRCD 175
In respect of a sublessee - future observance of the headlease Part II, Third Schedule

- covenant to permit entry for repairs

under the headlease
In respect of assignee S23(3), NRCD 175
- pay rent Part III, 3rd Schedule

- future observance of the headlease

- indemnity in favour of the assignor
Usual covenants - pay rent Sackey v Ashong
- keep and deliver up the premises in
repair
- allow the lessor to enter and view the
state of repairs
- proviso for re-entry by the lessor for a
breach of a covenant to pay rent
Type of Covenant Lessor Authority
Express - quiet enjoyment
- repair
- insure
- pay rates and taxes
Implied at common law - quiet enjoyment Common law
- obligation not to derogate from the grant
- implied condition of safety or fitness for
purpose
Implied by statute - right to convey S22(1), NRCD 175
- quiet enjoyment Pt I, Second Schedule
- freedom from encumbrances
- further assurance

In respect of conveyance by way of a - validity of the headlease S22(2), NRCD 175

sublessee - past observance of the headlease Pt II, Second Schedule
- future observance of the headlease
- production of title docs and delivery of
copies thereof

In respect of conveyance by way of - validity of the headlease S22(3), NRCD 175

assignment - past performance of headlease Pt III, 2nd Schedule

Usual covenants - quiet enjoyment

(ltd to only the acts of the lessor or the lawful
acts of any person rightfully claiming through
or under the lessor)

© TT 2012
Page 12 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

At common law there can be no forfeiture for breach of covenant under Bassil v Said Raad [no right of re-entry was provided for in the lease
a lease unless there is express provision in the lease for re-entry. And for subletting premises; landlord subsequently accepted rent too thus
where there is provision for re-entry upon breach, or where the breach estopped]
is not merely of a covenant but of a condition and therefore forfeiture
can attach without express provision for re-entry, a claim for forfeiture Thome v Barclays Bank [right of re-entry provided for in the lease for
will, however, be refused upon proof of waiver of the breach. At breach of covenant to keep premises in good and tenantable repair]
common law acceptance of rents accruing after the breach of covenant
or condition amounts to waiver of the breach.

There is an implied covenant not without the previous written consent Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule, NRCD 175
of the covenantee to assign, sublet, or part with the possession of the S22(2), Act 220
premises lease or any part thereof, such consent however not to be
reasonably withheld in the case of a respectable and responsible person

Every person subletting his premises must inform the landlord in S22(3)
writing within 14 days after he has sublet the premises the fact of such
subletting and its terms

No person in the case of a monthly or shorter tenancy of any premises S22(1), Rent Act 1963 (Act 220)
should sublet such premises without the written consent of the landlord Dhalomal v Puplampu [dead lawyer]

A sub-lease in contravention of the covenant of subletting always gives Schandorf v Zeini [defendants assigned without consent of
the head-lessor a right to damages and he may determine the lease by Saamanhene and the Asantehene]
re-entry but the sub-lease is not void ab initio Dhalomal v Puplampu [P sublet to K without consent of D]

Where there is a breach of the lessor’s right to convey, it means that

there is in effect no lease (nemo dat quod non habet). Such a breach
cannot be remedied by injunction or specific performance. The only
relief is damages for failure of consideration

The implied covenant for quiet enjoyment determines with the interest Adams v Gibney
of the lessor. Thus it’s not effective for the duration of the whole of the
term granted but only for as long as the lessor’s interest subsists

A lease or tenancy for a fixed period cannot be determined by notice Savage v GIHOC [termination by notice; 8 yrs by notice, 15 yrs by
(before the expiration of the period) unless this is expressly agreed effluxion]
upon. Thus where a tenant terminates the lease before the effluxion of
the lease period, the landlord is entitled to damages for the remainder of
the lease period

The general rule is that a tenant was required to deliver up possession to S23(1) NRCD 175
his landlord at the end of the term. If he failed to do so he would be Monta v Paterson Simons [sublessee refused to give up vacant
liable for the continued use and occupation and might also be required possession upon notice to quit served on lessor by lessee]
to pay damages if any had resulted from his failure to give up
possession. In that regard, it was immaterial that the failure arose, not
from his own act but from the act of a third person whom he had put in
a part or the whole of the premises and who wrongfully refused to give
up possession

Where a tenant had, during the tenancy, lawfully sub-let part of the S17(1) and s25(2) of Act 220
premises and he later gave the landlord and the sub-tenant proper notice Monta v Paterson Simons [no notice was given in respect of the
to determine the tenancy and the sub-tenancy he would not be liable to particular sub-lesee who refused to give up possession so this
the landlord for rent or for use and occupation or damages if the sub- provision doesn’t avail the defendant]
tenant remained in possession as a statutory tenant, as he would have
done everything legally possible to give the landlord vacant possession.

In the absence of a written consent from the landlord as required by Osekre v Saah [lessee gives a sub-lease without consent of lessor;
section 22 (1) of Act 220, a tenancy having been brought to an end by a lessor gives notice to lessee to quit but sub-lessee doesn’t want to quit
notice to quit, a payment of rent after the termination of the tenancy but pays rent to the lessee to help offset his owed to lessor]
would not operate in favour of the sub-tenant unless it could be shown
that the parties intended that there should be a new tenancy agreement

Rent
Rent is profit issuing out of the leased land

Payment of rent to a third party not authorised by the lessor for that S34(2)(c), Limitation Decree, 1972 (NRCD 54)

© TT 2012
Page 13 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

purpose constitutes a denial of the title of the lessor

Where there is an express covenant to pay rent, the lessee must seek out Haldane v Johnson
the lessor and pay him the rent due on the date stipulated in the lease

If the covenant to pay rent is not expressly stated in the lease but is only
implied, the lessee’s obligation is to wait on the leased premises ready
to pay the lessor at the due date

In the absence of an express agreement, the common law presumption Coomber v Howard
is that rent is payable in arrears

If a lease is granted for immoral or illegal purpose, the covenant to pay Upfill v Wright
rent is not enforceable based on public policy Alexander v Rayson

If a lessee is in default of rent, the lessor may take action for rent, S17(1)(a), Act 220
forfeiture or distrain for rent either singly or in combination

In Ghana, forfeiture for non-payment of rent alone is unlikely to

succeed as the courts are likely to grant relief to the lessee and rather
compel the lessee to pay the outstanding rent

DEFENCES FOR ACTIONS TO RECOVER LAND

Estoppel By Acquiescence
It is a situation where the courts will prohibit the owner of land from
asserting his title and right to land due to a mistake of fact on the part of
the plaintiff that he was entitled to the property, and the exhibition of
conduct which makes it unfair to the plaintiff who has developed the
land to give it back to the owner

To successfully plead estoppel by acquiescence

- the party pleading estoppel should have acted on the basis of a
mistaken belief
- there should be silence on the part of the rightful owner in the face
of the mistaken belief of the developer. The rightful owner must
thus know of or is deemed to know of the activities of the
developer on the property
-
The courts will not enforce the performance of a contract if the Willmott v Barber [lessee without license of lessor grants a sub-lease
performance of it might result in a forfeiture or lead to the breach of a and covenants to assign his reversionary interest but is unable to.
prior agreement with another person Action for specific performance failed]

Where the real owner of property is unaware of the presence of the Willmott v Barber [lessor was unaware of covenant not to sublet
plaintiff, he cannot be fixed with estoppel by acquiescence without licence]

Where the plaintiff could have reasonably found out who the owner of Willmott v Barber [plaintiff could have easily found out terms of the
the property was but failed to do so, he would be fixed with lessee’s lease]
constructive notice of the owner of the property

Where a person had occupied a piece of land under a mistaken belief Amonoo v Dee [land bought by granduncle of P, boundaries not
that that was the land he had purchased and he invested in it what clearly demarcated but had been in possession since 1890 and
appeared to be the most valuable investment, alienated a portion cultivated cocoa, palm and other foodstuffs. Even alienated part of the
thereof, all to the knowledge of the defendant, the possessor of the legal land to a church to use as a cemetery. D started encroaching and
rights, who took no steps to vindicate his title or at least to inform the claimed the land wasn’t P’s]
plaintiff occupier of his mistaken belief that the property he had
purchased was not the land he was occupying, the defendant's conduct
would amount to fraud, and the court would be entitled to restrain the
defendant from setting up his legal rights and exercise its discretion in
favour of the plaintiff

A bona fide purchaser of a legal interest for value without notice is Kwarteng v Addow [P bought property from someone against whom
protected by this defence where the legal interest holder sits by and an action for specific performance had been instituted by D. There
watches him/her spend money on the property without notification of was an agreement that if money owed D was paid by P, he’d drop the
his interest in the land action. although money paid, he didn’t and actually got judgement in
his favour. He sought to enforce the judgment and in an action
instituted by P for a declaration of title, judgment in her favour]

© TT 2012
Page 14 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

Where a party represents something to be true which he knows to be Pickard v Sears

untrue, or at least that he means his representation to be acted upon, and
that it is acted upon accordingly; and if whatever a man’s real intention
may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would take the
representation to be true, and believe that it was meant that he should
act upon it, and did act upon it as true, the party making the
representation would be equally precluded from contesting its truth.

Estoppel operates as a conveyance of the rightful owner’s interest to the Kwarteng v Addow [although the legal owner was D, possession was
person who has developed the property i.e. it extinguishes the interest given to P]
of the rightful owner.

However per Ollennu, the interest of the rightful owner isn’t

extinguished but the developer’s interest exists only as long as the
development is still on the land

Estoppel by Res Judicata

Limitation of Actions
(1) No action shall be brought or distress made to recover arrears of S9, Limitation Decree, 1972 (NRCD 54)
rent or damages in respect thereof after the expiration of six years
from the date on which the arrears became due.

(2) No action shall be brought to recover arrears of an annuity charged

on movable property or damages in respect thereof after the
expiration of six years from the date on which the arrears became
due.

(1) No action shall be brought to recover any land after the expiration S10, NRCD 54
of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued
to the person bringing it or, if it first accrued to some person Manu v Yeboah [P bought house of D on auction. He allowed her to
through whom he claims, to that person. live in the house as a tenant for about 17 yrs. P was forced by soldiers
in ’79 to give back the house and collect the amount he paid for it. He
(2) No right of action to recover land shall be deemed to accrue unless brought an action saying purported transfer should be reversed on
the land is in the possession of some person in whose favour the ground of duress. D claimed the auction was illegal. Held; D was
period of limitation can run (in this section referred to as "adverse statute barred and her rights had extinguished per s10(1) and (6)]
possession").
Saaka v Dahali [defendants were licensees, long possession does not
(6) On the expiration of the period fixed by this Decree for any person ripen into ownership or adverse title and although it may exclude all
to bring an action to recover land, the title of that person to the land others, it won’t avail against the true owner or anyone who derives
shall be extinguished title from the true owner]

(1) Where any right of action accrued to a person who is under a S16, NRCD 54
disability, the period of limitation shall be computed from the date
when the person ceased to be under the disability or died,
whichever event first occurred, notwithstanding that the period of
limitation might otherwise have expired.

3. Where a right of action which has accrued to a person under a

disability accrues, on the death of that person while still under a
disability, to another person under a disability, no further
extension of time shall be allowed by reason of the disability of
the second person

5. A person shall be deemed to be under a disability while he is an

infant or of unsound mind

Fresh accrual on acknowledgement of debt, mortgagee’s title to land, S17, NRCD 54

© TT 2012
Page 15 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

claim for movable estate of a deceased person, a right of action to

recover land, which acknowledgement is in writing and signed by the
maker

- An acknowledgement of a debt shall bind the person making it and S18, NRCD 54
his successors but not any other person
- An acknowledgement of a statute-barred debt shall not bind any
successor of the person giving it on whom the liability devolves
- Where two or more mortgagees are by virtue of the mortgage in
possession of the mortgaged land, an acknowledgement of the
mortgagor's title or of his equity of redemption by one of the
mortgagees shall only bind him and his successors and shall not
bind any other mortgagee or his successors.

Fresh accrual on part payment of debt, claim for immovable property, S19, NRCD 54
payment in respect of mortgage debt by the person in possession,
payment in respect of encumbrances, payment of mortgage debt by
mortgagor

Where, in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is S22, NRCD 54
fixed by this Decree the period of limitation shall not begin to run until
the plaintiff has discovered the fraud or mistake where the defendant or
his agent concealed the right of action by fraud or where the plaintiff
made a mistake

(2) No action can be brought to recover, or enforce any charge against,

or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which—
(a) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration
by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of
the purchase know or have reason to believe that any fraud had been
committed, or
(b) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable
consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was
made, by a person who did not know or have reason to believe that the
mistake was made.

1. This Decree shall apply to proceedings by or against the Republic S30, NRCD 54
as if the Republic were a private individual.
Essuon II v Yemo [D went into put in possession of the disputed land
3. This Decree shall apply to actions in respect of matters regulated by Stool A in 1930. After 40 years Stool B, the plaintiffs brought an
by customary law. action for an order to make D attorn tenancy to them, based on the
findings of a boundary dispute commissioner, failing which an order
for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Held, the land was
not within their boundary. Even if it was, they were statute-barred per
s10 of NRCD 54 which equally applied to customary grants]

Nothing in this Decree shall affect any equitable jurisdiction to refuse S31, NRCD 54
relief on the ground of acquiescence or otherwise

Registration
The Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122) is an Act to consolidate with Long title, Act 122
amendments the law relating to the registration of instruments affecting
land.

No instrument, except a will or probate, shall be registered unless it S4, Act 122
contains a description (which may be by reference to a plan) which, in
the opinion of the registrar, is sufficient to enable the location and
boundaries of the land to which it relates to be identified or a sufficient
reference to the date and particulars of registration of an instrument
affecting the same land and already registered

The will of a person who died before the 24th day of March, 1883, and S9, Act 122
any other instrument executed before that date, may be registered
without proof.

An instrument other than a will or judge’s certificate first executed after S24, Act 122

© TT 2012
Page 16 of 17
 Immovable Property
Principle Authority

the commencement of this Act shall be of no effect until it is registered Amefinu v Odametey [P bought land from a vendor and commenced
registration. D, without notice bought same land and registered it. In
an action for declaration of title, held; an unregistered instrument
had no validity or legal effect and no issue of priority could
consequently arise in respect of such an invalid instrument and a later
registered instrument. The issue of priority would only arise between
competing registered instruments]

Ussher v Darko [the legal interest conveyed to P was not registered

per s24, thus no legal title conveyed, subsequently he wasn’t equity’s
darling]

Hammond v Odoi [non-registration makes a deed void]

The registration of any instrument shall be deemed or constitute actual S25, Act 122
notice of the instrument and of the fact of registration to all persons and
for all purposes, as from the date of registration

No action shall be brought against the Chief Registrar or a registrar in S29, Act 122
respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him in good faith in
the execution or supposed execution of his functions under this Act.

All instruments duly registered or deemed to be duly registered in S30, Act 122
pursuance of any law in force prior to the commencement of this Act
shall be retained by the registrars in charge thereof and every
instrument duly registered therein in pursuance of the law governing its
registration at the date of its registration shall be deemed to be duly
registered under this Act and shall continue to take effect in accordance
with that law.

Any person who knowingly — S34, Act 122

(a) purports to make a grant of a piece of land to which he has no title;
or Amuzu v Oklikah [vendor sold land to D. while he was still making
(b) purports to make a grant of a piece of land without authority; or payments, sold the same piece of land to P who knew about the first
(c) makes conflicting grants in respect of the same piece of land to sale but registered his interest. He sought to enter into possession and
more than one person, shall be guilty of an offence which shall be a when D refused, sued for a declaration of title. Trial court and CA
second degree felony and may, in addition to any other punishment that held that the registered document overreached the equitable interest.
may be imposed upon him, be liable to pay an amount of twice the On appeal to the SC, held; Act 122 did not abolish the equitable
value of the aggregate consideration received by him. doctrines of notice and fraud and neither had it conferred on a
registered instrument a state-guaranteed title. A later executed
instrument will take precedence over another with respect to
registration where the 2nd in time is equity’s darling]

"instrument" means any writing affecting land situate in Ghana, S36, Act 122
including a judge's certificate and a memorandum of deposit of title
deeds; Boateng v Adwinfuor [D had a customary lease by parole from the
vendor which gave him a lease for an indeterminate period and he
was to expend money on the property and net the amount spent
against rent. P bought the property with knowledge of the tenancy but
she ordered D to pay her rent. Upon refusal, she instituted the action.
held; registration confers priority on a registered instrument only as
against other instruments affecting the same land. A customary grant
by parole need not be registered as it’s not an instrument. By the
equitable remedies against fraud and unconscionability, judgment for
D]

Lack of registration did not make an instrument void but ineffective and Ntem v Ankwandah [P’s title deemed to be constructively registered
it would become effective by registration as Registrar had no right to refuse to register her land because the
chief who granted it had not been gazetted. Traditional fxn of chief
separate from statutory fxns]

this principle has been overruled by SC in Hammond v Odoi

© TT 2012
Page 17 of 17