LAW TIPS
Courts are bound to enforce compliance with statutory requirements and cannot rely on documents that violate such laws. NORTEY(NO.2) v AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISM & COMMUNICATION (J4/47/2013) (26/2/2014)
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“Notwithstanding that the exhibit A was accepted in evidence without any objection, it could not constitute evidence for the purpose for which it was tendered since it infringed the Instrument. This is so because our courts have a duty to ensure compliance with statutes including subsidiary legislations like the LI 1444 in this case. (See Ex Parte National Lottery Authority (2009) SCGLR 390 at 402” NORTEY(NO.2) v AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISM & COMMUNICATION (J4/47/2013) (26/2/2014)
LAW TIP
A site plan that is undated and unsigned by the Director of Survey has no probative value in court even if admitted without objection. Courts are bound to enforce compliance with statutory requirements and cannot rely on documents that violate such laws. NORTEY v AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISM & COMMUNICATION (J4/47/2013) (26/2/2014)
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“The plaintiff tendered exhibit A a site plan which bears the same endorsements as in the writ of summons in apparent proof of his claim to the land, i.e. his root of title. Exhibit A is however not dated. It is also not signed by the Director of Survey or his representative. This is contrary to section 3 (1) of L.I.1444, the Survey (Supervision and Approval of Plans) Regulations, 1989 which makes it mandatory for plans of any parcel of land attached to any instrument for the registration of such instruments to be approved by the Director of Survey or any official surveyor authorized in that behalf. This stark infringement of the statutory requirement renders the exhibit A of no probative value as rightly determined by the Court of Appeal. Notwithstanding that the exhibit A was accepted in evidence without any objection, it could not constitute evidence for the purpose for which it was tendered since it infringed the Instrument. This is so because our courts have a duty to ensure compliance with statutes including subsidiary legislations like the LI 1444 in this case. (See Ex Parte National Lottery Authority (2009) SCGLR 390 at 402” NORTEY(NO.2) v AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISM & COMMUNICATION (J4/47/2013) (26/2/2014)