LAW TIP
Documents that require stamping cannot be admitted as evidence if not stamped. If it’s not stamped, it can’t be used in court. NII AFLAH v BENJAMIN KWAKU BOATENG Suit No. J4/80/2022 (22/3/ 2023)
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“For the reasons proffered above, we are of the considered opinion that the law on the admissibility or otherwise of unstamped documents or instruments as enunciated in the cases of Lizori and Woodhouse are more accurate precedents of the proper construction of Section 32 of the Stamp Duty Act, 2005 (Act 689). In the present case, an examination of Exhibit B, shows clearly that it was not stamped in accordance with Section 32(6) of Act 689. Consequently, the trial court ought not to have admitted Exhibit B in evidence even though from the record we find that no such objection was taken to its admissibility. This is because a Court has no discretion to admit in evidence an instrument which has not satisfied any preconditions for admissibility, such as stamping, imposed by the express provisions of an Act of Parliament, such as the terms of section 32 of the Act 689.” NII AFLAH v BENJAMIN KWAKU BOATENG Suit No. J4/80/2022 (22/3/ 2023)
LAW TIP
To claim ownership of land, you must clearly identify it. If the land’s identity isn’t proven, the claim fails. The exact measurements aren’t required, the description must be clear. NII AFLAH v BENJAMIN KWAKU BOATENG Suit No. J4/80/2022 (22/3/2023)
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“The identity of the land in dispute need not assume mathematical precision. Indeed, in the case of Jass Co Ltd & Anor vrs Appau and Anor [2009] SCGLR 265 at 275 it was held by this Court that proof of identity of land need not be made with mathematical precision.
The Court put it thus:
“As a matter of fact, the contention that a party must prove the identity of land in a land suit with certainty to enable a court decree title does not mean mathematical identity or certainty. It is enough, such as in the instant appeal where the defendants have been able to establish the identity of the land purchased from the Asere Stool by the first defendant and that conveyed to the second defendant by the first defendant.” We are agreeable with the Appellant that a party who wants a declaration of title to land has a duty to establish the identity of the land. This is supported by a plethora of cases including this Court’s decision in the case of Tetteh vrs Hayford [2012] 1 SCGLR 417 wherein Dotse JSC held at page 426 as follows: “The position of the law, following from the decision in Fofie v Wusu [1992-93] GBR 877 is that it is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the identity of the land she is laying claim to. Failure to prove this identity is fatal to a claim for declaration of title. In the Fofie case, the Court of Appeal: coram, Lampety, Adjabeng and Brobbey JJA (as they then were) speaking with one voice through Lamptey JA held as follows: “To succeed in an action for a declaration of title to land a party must adduce evidence to prove and establish the identity of the land in respect of which he claimed a declaration of title. On the evidence, the plaintiff failed to prove the identity of the land claimed. See also Kwabena v Atuahene (1981] GLR 136, CA; Anane v Donkor [1965] GLR 188, SC and Bedu v Agbi [1972) 2 GLR 238, CA” — NII AFLAH v BENJAMIN KWAKU BOATENG suit No. J4/80/2022 (22/3/ 2023)