The case of Volta Ghana Investments Company Limited (VGICL) versus its grantors, the Lands Commission, and other parties, reveals a complex land dispute riddled with questionable practices and legal inconsistencies. Initiated in 2019, the lawsuit (Suit No. LD/0569/2019) stemmed from contested land ownership within the Pokuase Kwabenya enclave. VGICL’s initial attempts to secure injunctions against the defendants proved unsuccessful, with the court citing inconsistencies between the land area indicated on VGICL’s title certificate and the actual land demarcated on the ground. The judge highlighted that the Land Registry and VGICL’s own grantor had provided evidence demonstrating an erroneous land area representation on the certificate, a claim VGICL failed to effectively rebut. This initial setback underscored the inherent discrepancies within VGICL’s land claim.
Following the failed injunction attempts, VGICL pursued a judicial review application (Suit No. CR/0137/2021) against the Lands Commission. This application sought to compel the Lands Commission to reinstate a portion of land that had been removed from VGICL’s certificate. This removal was necessitated by the discovery that VGICL’s initial certificate encroached upon land belonging to other parties, a critical flaw highlighting the inaccuracies of VGICL’s original land documentation. The judicial review application also failed, further weakening VGICL’s legal standing regarding the disputed land. Subsequent checks indicate that the case has seemingly been abandoned by VGICL, raising further questions about the company’s commitment to resolving the land dispute legally.
Adding to the complexity of this case is VGICL’s disregard for a letter issued by the Lands Commission on November 14, 2018. This letter explicitly directed VGICL to surrender its certificate for amendment, acknowledging that the cadastral plan associated with the certificate (Title Certificate No. G. A. 14810) did not accurately reflect the land delineated in VGICL’s site plan. The Lands Commission clearly outlined the need for a revised plan to rectify the discrepancy. VGICL’s failure to comply with this directive not only demonstrates a disregard for due process but also contributes to the ongoing legal ambiguity surrounding the land’s ownership. This non-compliance ultimately led the Lands Commission to excise the encroaching portion of land from VGICL’s plan, rendering their existing certificate legally invalid for any transactions.
Despite the ongoing legal challenges and the invalidated certificate, VGICL continued to advertise and purportedly sell plots within the disputed Pokuase/Kwabenya land. This action raises serious ethical and legal concerns. An interview conducted with a VGICL representative, Agnes, on December 18th at their Ring Road office in Accra, further confirmed this troubling practice. Agnes admitted to the ongoing legal issues surrounding the Pokuase/Kwabenya lands yet failed to offer a justifiable explanation for the company’s continued sale of plots within the disputed area. This admission underscores a concerning disregard for legal transparency and raises the potential for defrauding unsuspecting investors and developers.
VGICL’s actions throughout this land dispute demonstrate a pattern of questionable conduct. Suing their own grantor and the Lands Commission, a statutory body responsible for land registration and record-keeping, indicates a disconcerting willingness to engage in legal battles despite the apparent weaknesses in their claim. Moreover, the continued sale of land plots despite the invalidated certificate and ongoing litigation suggests a deliberate disregard for legal procedures and ethical business practices. This behaviour raises significant concerns about the company’s integrity and casts a shadow over their operations.
The Lands Commission, although a party to the lawsuit, is also implicated in this situation. Their awareness of VGICL’s activities, particularly the continued sale of land within the disputed area despite the invalidated certificate, demands their immediate attention and action. All pending transactions related to the disputed lands within the Lands Commission’s records should be considered void and null, safeguarding potential buyers from becoming entangled in the legal quagmire surrounding this property. This case highlights the urgent need for increased scrutiny and enforcement of regulations within Ghana’s land transaction system to protect individuals from potentially fraudulent land dealings and ensure ethical and transparent practices within the real estate sector.
