Mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): a worthwhile approach to resolving land disputes

• the case of Act 1036 (Land Act 2020)
• “Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often the real loser — in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker, the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.” – Abraham Lincoln

Before the advent of the colonial system of justice delivery, native wisdom had established an elaborate and effective dispute resolution systems. Mediation, negotiated settlements to mention a few were the mainstream dispute resolution processes employed by the native Ghanaian to resolve their disputes[2]. Land cases were resolved in the native courts presided over by the Chief or “odikro” of the area and supported by his elders in his palace. Dispute resolution at the level of the native courts were resolved expeditiously and with the active participation of the parties.

Since the colonial masters assumed control of Ghana, then Gold Coast, the mode of dispute resolution has been the adversarial system characterized by litigation. Litigation as a means of dispute resolution is adversarial, highly aggressive, confrontational and very expensive. Expensive in two (2) ways: financial and time consuming.

Delivering the lead judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Adu v. Kyeremeh[3], Justice Adade JSC stated that “It is a serious indictment on the administration of justice in this country that a case [land related] of such simple dimensions should take as long as 26 years to see itself through the courts.  It started in November 1960; it is now, in April 1987, being given hopefully its final farewell. 24 out of these 26 years were spent in the Court of Appeal alone.  When in 1981, in Abba v. Nframa, Supreme Court, 30 November 1981, unreported, I came upon a similar situation, I whined.  That case took twelve years.  This one is worse.”.

In a speech at the 2011 Ghana Bar Association Annual Conference, continuous legal education workshop in Elmina on the 20^th day of September 2011 and under the theme: “A Daniel come to Judgment”, the learned Justice of the Supreme Court, then Mr. Nene Amagatcher, Esq argued that the resolve of Ghana to explore alternative means of dispute resolution by the passage of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010 (Act 786) is “a Daniel that has come to save our judicial system from drowning under the weight of the huge backlog of cases, interminable delays, high costs and unsuspected litigants unwilling to try other alternative systems of dispute resolution”[4].

The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010 (Act 786) introduces three main means of dispute resolution including mediation, negotiation and arbitration. It is worth a note that the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act also recognizes customary arbitration.

Ghana’s judiciary has adopted the use of ADR as a viable means of dispute resolution by the introduction of ‘Court Connected ADR’ and or ‘ADR week’ as a strategy to clear the backlog of cases that weighs down the courts.

As regards court connected ADR, Magistrates or Judges may on their own or at the request of the parties to a case, refer cases before them to ADR offices set up by the Judiciary to mediate and attempt settlement of the dispute[5]. Since 2007, a week in each legal year is set aside by the Chief Justice to create mass public awareness in order to educate the citizenry on the use of ADR to settle disputes[6]. Speaking on the success of the Court Connected ADR for the year 2019, the Judge in charge of ADR, Justice Irene Charity Larbi disclosed that out of a total of 6,209 cases listed for mediation, 3,041 of the cases were settled amicably representing 49 per cent settlement rate[7].

Recognizing the above benefits of ADR, the drafters of Act 1036 have included ADR mechanisms as a means of settling disputes. Act 1036 sets out various instances in which aggrieved persons in a land dispute may submit at first instance to the resolution of their cases in accordance with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010, before commencing legal action in a court of law. It follows then that an aggrieved person in some land related disputes cannot at first instance commence legal action in the law Courts unless they have exhausted the processes of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). A Court of law would thus dismiss such land related disputes that comes before them at first instance from the 23^rd day of December 2020, when the Land Act 2020 (Act 1036) was gazetted.

The following are some of the instances under the Land Act 2020, (Act 1036) where parties to land related disputes are obliged to first resort to ADR before they proceed to the law Court for redress.

1. Dispute as to compensation over damaged land

Act 1036 vests authority in the Lands Commission to in writing authorize any official surveyor or licensed surveyor to enter upon any land to carry out demarcation or survey work[8]. If the said official in the performance of his duties causes damage to the land, the occupier is entitled to be paid compensation by the Lands Commission[9].

Accordingly, section 25 of Act 1036 inter alia provides that where the value assessed for compensation does not commensurate to the damage caused, the affected persons may apply to the Land Commission for a review of the assessed values and where they are still dissatisfied after the review, they may submit the matter for resolution under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).  It follows then that although aggrieved persons are entitled to commence legal action in court[10] over the amount of compensation assessed, it is expected that they first exhaust the processes of alternative dispute resolution before proceeding to Court.

2. Dispute as to compensation over damaged land caused by a concessionaire.

Where the Lands Commission (acting on behalf of the State) grants a land concession in a locality to a person, the law confers on the concessionaire, the right to enter the land for purposes of survey or feasibility studies[11].

However, where damage is caused to an adjourning land or property as a result of the entry (by the holder of the concession), compensation must be paid to the affected owners. If a dispute arises as to the amount to be paid in compensation by the concessionaire to the owners of the damaged property or land, Act 1036 provides for such concerned persons to first, petition the Lands Commission for redress. If the claimant(s) is dissatisfied with the decision of the Lands Commission, the matter may further be referred for settlement by arbitration under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010.  To this end, Section 241 (5) of Act 1036 provides:

(5)        On an entry under subsection (1), the authorized person [concessionaire], staff or workman shall pay for any damage caused by the entry and in case of a dispute as to the amount to be paid either that authorized person, staff or workman or the person claiming compensation may refer the matter to the Lands Commission and subsequently where that person is dissatisfied with the decision of the Lands Commission, that person may resort to arbitration under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).

3. Dispute as to compensation or restoration

Under the new land Act 2020, the President may by executive instrument authorize the temporary occupation[12] and use of a land for a period not exceeding 5 years;[13] subject to the payment of compensation assessed on rental terms. After the expiration of the 5 years temporary occupation or use, the president has three options, first, to renew the temporary occupation or use of the land for a further period of 5 years term[14]; second, to compulsorily acquire the land in accordance with Article 20 of the constitution 1992[15] or thirdly, restore the land to the condition that it was and give it back to its owners[16].

Where the state elects to give back the land but fails to retore the land to its previous condition, the law enjoins the state to pay compensation to the affected persons in lieu of the restoration. To this end, section 273 of Act 1036 enacts as follows:

On the expiration of the term of occupation or use referred to in subsection (4) of section 271, the state shall restore the land to the condition in which the land was before the occupation or use and, failing that restoration, compensation shall be paid for any damage done to the land, or for the extent by which the value of the land has been reduced by reason of the occupation or use. Where there is disagreement between the state and the owners of the property over the amount to be paid as compensation in lieu of the restoration, Section 274 of Act 1036 provides:

Where the Lands Commission [acting on behalf of the state] is unable to agree with the persons who have interest in the land, on the amount of compensation payable under section 273 or as to the condition of the land at the expiration of the term for which the land is occupied or used, the Lands Commission shall refer the matter for resolution under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).

4. Dispute as to compensation over compulsorily acquired land by the State.

Article 20 of the constitution 1992 recognises the eminent domain power of the state. That is to say, the state may in the public interest compulsorily take possession of or acquire a private land and convert it for pubic purpose; on stated grounds provided for in law. Where the state exercises its power of eminent domain, compensation has to be paid to the owners of the land.

Article 20(2) (a)&(b) of the constitution 1992 thus provides:

• Compulsory acquisition of property by the State shall only be made

under a law which makes provision for –

(a)        the prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation; and

(b)        a right of acess to the High Court by a person who has an interest in or right over the property whether direct or on appeal from any other authority for the determination of his interest or right and the amount of compensation to which he is entitled.

Accordingly, Section 239 of the new Land Act 2020 thus provides, “Compulsory acquisition by the State shall be in accordance with the proceedures provided in section 240 to 249” of Act 1036.

Where persons whose property have been compulsorily acquired are dissatisfied with the amount assesed and paid to them as compensation, Act 1036 inter lia provides that such persons should first appeal for review of the assessed value (of their ‘lost land or property’) to the Lands Commission and if still dissatisfied after the review, further refer the matter for settlement in accordance with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 786).

To this end, Section 253 (3) of Act 1036 enacts:

(3)        A person who is dissatisfied with the assessment of compensation by the Lands Commission may apply to the Lands Commission for a review of the assessment and where that person is still dissatisfied after the review, that person may refer the matter for resolution under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).

It is important to note that even though Section 253(3) provides for aggrieved persons to settle disputes as to compensation over compulsorily acquired lands by means of ADR, the subsequent provision, section 253(4) cautions that section 253 (3) above, does not take away the right of a person to seek redress at the High Court. To this, Section 253 (4) of Act 1036 enacts:

(4)        Subsection (3) does not take away the right of a person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Lands Commission to resort to the High Court in accordance with paragraph (b) of clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution.
The caution thus makes section 253 (3) consistent with the provisions of Article 20 (2) (b) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.

5. Dispute as to Conflicting claims of interest and rights over compulsorily acquired lands

Where the state exercises its eminent domain powers in accordance with Article 20(2) of the 1992 constitution and there are rival claims[17] as to the ownership of the parcel of land acquired, the law enjoins the disputed parties to at first instance settle the dispute in accordance with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798). To this end, Section 254 of Act 1036 enacts:

(1)        Where there is a dispute as to the right or interest in land claimed, the claimants or the Lands Commission may refer the matter for resolution under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).
Subsection 2 of section 254 however cautions as follows:

(2)        Subsection (1) does not take away the right of a claimant to resort to the High Court in accordance with paragraph (b) of clause (2) of article 20 of the Constitution.

6. Dispute as to the Renewal of Leased Lands

Another instance where the new land Act 2020 requires parties in a land dispute to first attempt settlement of their dispute outside the courtroom litigation is where a dispute arises between a lessee and lessor over the terms for the renewal of a leased land[18]. In this regard, Act 1036 inter alia provides that where a bare land was leased to a person and the lessee, who is an indigene of the area, has developed the land for residential purposes; a farm of perennial crops on the land; or a commercial or industrial property on the land, the said lease on the expiry of the term shall be subject to automatic renewal[19]. Where there is however disagreement as to the new terms of the renewal of the lease, the parties must first attempt to settle the dispute in accordance with the ADR Act 2010 before they resort to a court of law[20]. The effect of section 50 (14 to (16) of Act 1036 is that, a person cannot commence legal action in court at first instance over a dispute involving the renewal of leased land unless an alternative means of dispute resolution as provided for in the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010 (Act 798) is exhausted.

7. Dispute as to the Position of a Boundary within a Registration District

Section 91(2) of the new land Act 2020 provides that: “where an uncertainty or a dispute arises as to the position of a boundary within a registration district, the Land Registrar shall advise the claimants to refer the dispute for resolution under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) for the purpose of the determination and indication of the position of the boundaries”.
Consequently, Section 91(4) of Act 1036 provides that:
“A court shall not entertain an action concerning a dispute as to the
boundaries of a parcel within a registration district unless the process

of settlement provided in this section has been exhausted”.

8. Dispute as to Land in a Registration District
   Section 98(1) of Act 1036 also obliges parties in a land dispute in a registration district to first attempt settlement of their dispute by ADR before resorting to the law courts. To this end, Section 98(1) provides that:

An action concerning any land or interest in land in a registration
district shall not be commenced in any court unless the procedures
for resolution of disputes under the Alternative Dispute Resolution
Act,2010 (Act 798) have been exhausted.

Consequently, land related disputes involving lands particularly in the Greater Accra region and parts of other regional capitals of Ghana (which are declared registration districts) must be commenced first by ADR.

9. Disputes as to Conflicting Claims of interest in Land in a Title Registration
   District
   In respect of conflicting claims of interest in land by two or more persons in a title registration district, Section 115(1) of Act 1036 provides:

(1)         Where there are two or more claimants of any interest in land situated in a title registration district and the Land Registrar is  unable to arrive at an agreement among the claimants, the Land
Registrar shall direct the claimants to seek resolution of the dispute
under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).

Consequently, subsection 2 of Section 115 of Act 1036 provides that:

(2)      A court shall not entertain an action in respect of conflicting claims until
the process for resolution referred to in this section has been exhausted.

10. In respect of appeals from the decision of the Regional Lands Commission

Section 102(3) of Act 1036 inter alia enjoins the Lands Registrar not to register a large-scale disposition of a stool or skin land, or clan or family land unless the Regional Lands Commission in accordance with article 36(8) and article 267(3) of the 1992 Constitution gives consent and concurrence to the disposition.

Article 36(8) of the Constitution 1992 provides:

(8)        The State shall recognize that ownership and possession of land carry
a social obligation to serve the larger community and, in particular, the
State shall recognize that the managers of public, stool, skin and family
lands are fiduciaries charged with the obligation to discharge their
functions for the benefit respectively of the people of Ghana, of the stool,
skin, or family concerned and are accountable as fiduciaries in this regard.

Article 267(3) of the 1992 Constitution further states that:

(3)        There shall be no disposition or development of any stool land unless the
Regional Lands Commission of the region in which the land is situated has
certified that the disposition or development is consistent with the development
plan drawn up or approved by the planning authority for the area concerned.

The combined effect of articles 36(8), 267(3) & 267(4) of the 1992 constitution is that, the Regional Lands Commission may refuse to consent or concur for the registration of a large tract of stool, skin, family or clan lands on grounds that (i) registration of the said land would amount to a breach of their fiduciary role to their subjects and (ii) that the disposition is not consistent with the development plan of the area concerned.

Where applicants, in respect of clan or family lands, are dissatisfied with the decision of the Regional Lands Commission to give consent or concurrence to enable the Land Registrar to register their interest in land, section 102(7)(a) of Act 1036 obliges such aggrieved persons to settle the dispute in accordance with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).

On the contrary, where the Regional Lands Commission refuses consent for the registration of a large-scale disposition involving stool or skin lands, section 102(7)(b) of Act 1036 in accordance with article 267(4) of the 1992 constitution entitle the aggrieved persons to challenge the refusal at first instance in the High Court.

11. Refusal by the Land Registrar to register land at first registration

Again, Section 106 of Act 1036 inter alia vest authority in the Land Registrar to on stated grounds reject an application for first registration by a person whose claim of a land is founded on an instrument. Further to the above, a person whose application for first registration is rejected by the Land registrar, he is obliged to at first instance appeal to the Lands Commission in the region where the land is situated for redress. If the aggrieved person is dissatisfied with the decision of the Regional Lands Commission, he may refer the matter for resolution in accordance with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) before heading to the law courts.

To this end, Section 107(4) of Act 1036 provides:

            (4)        An applicant dissatisfied with the rejection of the application of that

applicant under subsection (1) of section 106, may first appeal to the

Regional Lands Commission, and where the applicant is dissatisfied

with the decision of the Regional Lands Commission, the applicant

may refer the matter for resolution under the Alternative Dispute

Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).

12. Dispute as to refusal by the Land Registrar to Register a Lease

Where a lease is made in breach of an obligation binding on the grantor, Act 1036 inter alia provides for the parties to attempt settlement alternative to courtroom litigation.

In this regard, Section 143 of Act 1036 enacts:

(1)        A lease shall not be registered if on the face of the instrument the lease is made in breach of an obligation binding on the grantor.

(2)        The registration of a lease contrary to subsection (1) is of no effect.

(3)        Where an applicant for registration of a lease is dissatisfied with the
decision of the Land Registrar not to register the lease, the applicant
shall refer the matter for resolution under the Alternative Dispute

Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).

13. Dispute as to refusal by the Land Registrar to register a land

The Land Act 2020 confer authority on the Land registrar to register interests or instruments affecting lands into the land register. Again, he is clothed under section 223 of Act 1036 to refuse to register an instrument affecting a particular land on grounds stated in the law. A person who is aggrieved by the decision of the Land Registrar not to register their interest in land or instrument is obliged to at first instance seek redress in accordance with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010. To this end, section 225 (5) & (6) of Act 1036 provides:

(5)        The decision of the Land Registrar shall be communicated in writing

to the grantor and to every person represented at the hearing and

shall be published in the same manner as the notice of the hearing.

(6)        The grantor, the grantee and any other party represented at the

hearing who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Land Registrar

may appeal to the Regional Lands Commission or seek a resolution

of the matter under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).

14. Dispute as to the refusal of a lessor to give consent for the assignment of lease
    Another instance where parties in a land dispute may first attempt settlement alternative to courtroom litigation is in respect of the registration of a lease which contains an agreement, (express or implied), that the lessee shall not deal with or transfer the property without the written consent of the lessor.

To this end Section 142 of Act 1036 provides:

(1)        On the registration of a lease containing an agreement, express

or implied, by the lessee that the lessee shall not transfer, sublet,
mortgage or otherwise assign the lease or a part of the lease without
the written consent of the lessor, a transaction in respect of the lease
shall not be registered until the consent of the lessor, verified in

accordance with section 164, has been produced to the Land Registrar.

(2)        Where the consent of the lessor is sought, the lessor shall within three
months, respond in writing stating whether or not the consent is
granted and where the consent is refused the reason for the refusal shall
be stated in the response.

(3)        A lessee who is dissatisfied with the refusal, may refer the matter for
resolution under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).

15. In respect of errors made during Rectification by the Land Registrar

Act 1036 inter alia vests authority in the Lands Registrar to rectify the land register or an instrument presented to him for registration on grounds[21] that:
a)   the register or instrument contains clerical errors, omissions or any other matters that do not
materially affect the interests of a proprietor;
(b) that the persons concerned consent to the rectification; or
(c) that on a survey verified and approved by the Director of Survey and Mapping Division, a
dimension or an area shown in the land register is found to be incorrect.

Where the decision of the land registrar to rectify the land register is either not founded in law and/or affect the interest of a person, the land registrar may be challenged by the dissatisfied party. To this end, section 194(5) of Act 1036 provides:

(5)      A person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Land

Registrar under this section may refer the matter for

resolution under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).

It follows then that a person whose interest in land is affected by the decision of the land registrar to rectify the land register, is expected to at first instance exhaust the process of ADR before resorting to the law court.

16. Dispute as to the award of indemnity by the Land Registrar
    Section 196 of Act 1036 provides that, subject to the Limitation Act and law, a person is entitled to be indemnified by the state if his or her property is damaged or is prevented from acquiring land or an interest in land, as a result of errors in the land register or a certified copy or an extract from the register or by reason of a mistake in the register which cannot be rectified under the law.

The decision as to whether a right of indemnity has arisen as well as the award and cost incurred, under section 196, is vested in the Land Commission when an application is made to it by an affected party.  It follows then that an applicant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Lands Commission (as to an award or cost incurred or if their right to claim indemnity has arisen), is required to at first instance, settle the dispute outside courtroom litigation before commencing legal action in court.

Section 198(2) of Act 1036 thus states:

(2)        An applicant dissatisfied with the decision of the Lands

Commission may refer the matter for resolution under the

Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).

17. Review and Appeal of the decision(s) of the Land Registrar

The general position of the law is that, where a state official fails or refuses to perform a duty imposed on him by law, an aggrieved person may resort to a court of law and seek an order to compel such official to perform such duty imposed by law.

 

Contrary, the new Land Act 2020 (Act 1036) enacts that where the land registrar fails or refuse to perform a duty imposed on him by law; or that, a person is dissatisfied with any decision by the land registrar (in the performance of his duties), such aggrieved person is obliged to at first instance attempt settlement alternative to courtroom litigation.  That is to say, a person dissatisfied with the decision or conduct of the Land Registrar is required to, first, petition the Lands Commission for redress; if the concerns are not resolved, the matter must further be referred for settlement in accordance with the alternative dispute resolution Act, 2010.  To this end, Section 201 (1) & (2) of Act 1036 provides:

• Where the Land Registrar refuses to perform any act or duty

required to be performed by this Act or where a proprietor or any other

person who has an interest in land is dissatisfied with a direction, decision or

order of the Land Registrar in respect of an application, claim, matter

or thing under this Act, the proprietor or person who has an interest in

the land may, in the first instance apply to the Lands Commission for

review.

• A person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Lands Commission

may refer the matter for resolution under the Alternative Dispute

Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).

Justice Sir Dennis Dominic Adjei at the inaugural lecture[22] of the Land Act 2020 argued that this is the first time that an Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism has formed an integral part in resolving land disputes.  The learned Justice of the Court of Appeal further stated that under the repealed laws that governed land administration in Ghana, the closest provisions that came to ADR was the role of the ‘tribunals’ established by the Land Commission to settle land related disputes.

The current position of the law is that certain land disputes should not be commenced at first instance in the court of law unless and until the procedures for the resolution of disputes under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) have been exhausted. Consequently, the courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain such disputes until there is evidence that the ADR process for resolution has been exhausted.

Observation

A common phrase that appears in the Land Act 2020 (Act 1036) is that disputes, at first instance, be settled “in accordance with the Alternative Dispute Act 2010 (Act 798).” Consequently, parties in a land dispute may elect to settle their differences either by negotiation, mediation, arbitration or customary arbitration.

It is also observed that Act 1036 did not take into consideration what happens when a party to a dispute fails to attend or give consent for the dispute to be settled by way of ADR. The concept of ADR requires that both parties (plaintiff/ petitioner and defendant/respondent) agree for their dispute to be settled by means of ADR. Where for instance the petitioner or the Lands Commission in accordance with Act 1036, refer a dispute to ADR but the respondent fails to attend the ADR sessions; by the rules of ADR, the respondent cannot be compelled to attend the sessions. Consequently, the petitioner would have to resort to the law court for redress and even compel the attendance of a defendant by a court order. Indeed, the action would in my view be lawful because at that stage, the processes of ADR would have been exhausted.

It is again observed that the drafters of the land Act 2020 proceeded on the assumption that an Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre (ADR center) as stated in Act 798 exist. The ADR Center according to section 115(1) of Act 798 is to facilitate the practice of ADR without being involved in the actual resolution of a dispute. It follows then that persons who elect to settle their dispute in accordance with Act 798 may apply to the ADR Centre and request for their assistance to resolve their dispute.

The Judiciary in an effort to operationalize and promote the settlement of dispute outside of courtroom litigation has established an ADR Center within its institutional set up and has appointed officers to ensure its functioning.

The Lands Commission in coming up with a legislative Instrument (L.I) to operationalize the Lands Act 2020 (Act 1036) may take a cue from Ghana’s Judiciary and establish an Alternative Dispute Resolution Center within its institutional set up with the object to facilitate the resolution of dispute in accordance with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010 (Act 798).

There are also other private individuals and organizations that may serve as centers to assist parties resolve disputes alternative to courtroom litigation including the Ghana Arbitration Centre, Ghana Association of Chartered Mediators and Arbitrators (GHACMA), Gamey & Gamey Academy of Mediation and the West Africa Dispute Resolution Centre (WADREC).

Conclusion
Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms such as negotiation in its various forms, mediation and arbitration have been in use for some time now and are fast gaining popularity as a preferred method of dispute resolution. Parties who have gone through some ADR processes like mediation acknowledge their satisfaction and trust in the process.

The success story of the various ADR processes practiced over the years including Court Connected ADR, the ADR Week of the Judicial Service, just to name a few gives hope that the mandatory ADR provisions in the Land Act 2020 (Act 1036) would go a long way to reduce the frequency of land related legal suits that are brought before the law courts.

>>>the writer is a lawyer by Profession and has over 10 years cumulative work experience in many sectors of the Ghanaian economy including Law, Research and Banking. He worked with a Member of Parliament as a Research Assistant for many years. As a lawyer, his areas of legal practice include general litigation, land law, labour law, corporate law, insurance law, oil and gas law, debt recoveries just to name a few.

Paul holds a Barrister-at-Law Certificate (BL) from the Ghana School of Law; a Master of Laws (LL.M) from the University of Ghana, Bachelor of Laws Degree (LLB) from the Central University, Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in Political Studies from the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), and a Higher National Diploma (HND) from the Accra Technical University.

Paul has authored a number of academic publications in areas of law and governance, land law, petroleum law and a host of others. Paul has a reputation for honesty, integrity. He is passionate about leadership and is a results-oriented person. He can be reached on [email protected]

References

1. BA (KNUST), LL. B (Central University), LL.M (University of Ghana), BL (Ghana School of Law), Private Legal Practitioner
2. A.O. Amegatcher, “A Daniel come to Judgment”, delivered at the Ghana Bar Association Annual Conference continuous legal education workshop, Elmina, September 20, 2011
3. Adu v. Kyeremeh [1987-88] GLR 137 at page 138
4. A.O. Amegatcher, “A Daniel come to Judgment”, delivered at the Ghana Bar Association Annual Conference continuous legal education workshop, Elmina, September 20, 2011
5. Interview with Charles Turkson, Greater Accra Regional ADR Coordinator, Judicial Service of Ghana.
6. Justice A. Tandoh, Speech at the launch of ADR week in Accra, December 1, 2015, <https://www.modernghana.com/amp/news/659162/alternative-dispute-resolution-adr-week-launched.html>, April 18, 2021
7. The Ghanaian Times Newspaper, dated March 13, 2020 and published online by All Africa website <https://allafrica.com/stories/202003160439.html>, May 25, 2021
8. Lands Act 2020, (Act 1036), section 24(1)
9. Ibid at section 25(2)
10. Ibid at section 25(5)
11. Ibid at section 241(1)
12. Ibid at section 271(1)
13. Ibid at section 271 (4)
14. Ibid
15. Ibid at section 271(5)
16. Ibid at section 273
17. Lands Act 2020, (Act 1036), section 250
18. Ibid at section 50(15)
19. Ibid at section 50(9)
20. Ibid at section 50(16)
21. Lands Act 2020, (Act 1036), section 194(1)
22. Inaugural Lecture of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036), held at the Conference Room of the Ghana Academy of Arts and Science and under the theme “the Changing Trends in Land Law, Policy, Governance and Management under the Land Act, 2020 (ACT 1036)”, on 29^th April, 2020.

 

*BA (KNUST), LL. B (Central University), LL.M (University of Ghana), BL (Ghana School of Law), Private Legal Practitioner

[2] N.A.O. Amegatcher, “A Daniel come to Judgment”, delivered at the Ghana Bar Association Annual Conference continuous legal education workshop, Elmina, September 20, 2011

[3] Adu v. Kyeremeh [1987-88] GLR 137 at page 138

[4] N.A.O. Amegatcher, “A Daniel come to Judgment”, delivered at the Ghana Bar Association Annual Conference continuous
legal education workshop, Elmina, September 20, 2011

[5] Interview with Charles Turkson, Greater Accra Regional ADR Coordinator, Judicial Service of Ghana.

[6] Justice A. Tandoh, Speech at the launch of ADR week in Accra, December 1, 2015, <https://www.modernghana.com/amp/news/659162/alternative-dispute-resolution-adr-week-launched.html>, April 18, 2021

[7] The Ghanaian Times Newspaper, dated March 13, 2020 and published online by All Africa website <https://allafrica.com/stories/202003160439.html>, May 25, 2021

[8] Lands Act 2020, (Act 1036), section 24(1)

[9] Ibid at section 25(2)

[10] Ibid at section 25(5)

[11] Ibid at section 241(1)

[12] Ibid at section 271(1)

[13] Ibid at section 271 (4)

[14] ibid

[15] Ibid at section 271(5)

[16] Ibid at section 273

[17] Lands Act 2020, (Act 1036), section 250

[18] Ibid at section 50(15)

[19] Ibid at section 50(9)

[20] Ibid at section 50(16)

[21] Lands Act 2020, (Act 1036), section 194(1)

[22] Inaugural Lecture of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036), held at the Conference Room of the Ghana Academy of Arts and Science and under the theme “the Changing Trends in Land Law, Policy, Governance and Management under the Land Act, 2020 (ACT 1036)”, on 29^th April, 2020.