HIS LORDSHIP Alexander Osei Tutu (J.A.)
VOL. 1, 2026 EDITION
LAND REGISTRATION IN GHANA: A TALE OF MULTIPLE REGISTRATION REGIMES
Introduction
Ghana’s land registration landscape is a complex tapestry woven from colonial legacy, post-independence reforms and customary practices. The Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) currently introduces multiple regimes for land registration comprising deeds registration, title registration and customary law registration. Essentially, each regime has its own sets of rules, procedures, and implications for landowners and interested parties.
In practice, these distinct regimes have sometimes been poorly articulated and appear to be on a collision course; overlooking their distinct characteristics and consequences. The unified approach has serious implications for land governance in Ghana.
This article examines the multiple regimes of land registration in Ghana from the historical, customary, social, statutory and judicial perspectives.
History of Land Registration in Ghana
The historical evolution of Ghana’s land registration spans six distinct eras; –
Pre-colonial Gold Coast Era (Period Prior to 1883)
Land Registry Ordinances Regime (Period from 1883 – 1962)
Land Registry Act Regime (From 1963 – 1986)
Conveyancing Act Regime (Period from 1973)
Land Title Registration Law/Dual Registration Regimes (From 1986 – 2020)
Land Act/Multiple Registration Regimes (From 2020)
Pre-Colonial Gold Coast (Pre-1883 Era)
Prior to 1883, land was held under customary law tenure in the Gold Coast in sub-Saharan Africa (as distinguished from the coastal city of Gold Coast in Australia). It is assumed that as customary land was undocumented, there was no formal registration system.[1] Land ownership and transactions were thus governed by traditional authorities and witnessed by community members.
Land Registry Ordinances Regime (1883 – 1962 Era)
The colonial administration undoubtedly introduced land registration in the Gold Coast formally in 1883 through the Land Registry Ordinance, Cap 90.
Section 17 of the Ordinance read: “Every instrument executed after 24th March 1883 … shall, so far as regards any land affected thereby, take effect as against other instruments affecting the same land from the date of its registration”; and the word ‘instrument” was defined by section 2 to mean “any writing affecting land situate in the colony or Ashanti, including a judge’s certificate.”
It has been observed, quite profoundly, that the historical account of Ghana’s land registration during the colonial era, especially in the early days, has been difficult to grasp because of missing links and gaps in the historical account.[2] The literature on the subject seems divided on whether the Land Registry Ordinance of 1883 (Cap. 90) was repealed or remained in force till the end of the colonial administration.
A Chief Land Registrar at the Land Title Registry, Rebecca Sittie,[3] asserts that the 1883 Land Registry Ordinance was repealed by the Land Registry Ordinance of 1895. Her position is shared by other writers.[4] The learned land expert, Woodman, in his view professes that the 1883 Ordinance was re-enacted with some modifications by the Land Registry Ordinance of 1895.[5] BJ Da Rocha and Lodoh however asseverate that the 1883 Ordinance remained in force until 1962.[6] On his part, Agbosu[7] affirms that the 1883 Ordinance was only amended.[8]
Be that as it may, the archival report from the British Library[9] appears to reconcile the controversy thus: “The Land Registry Ordinance 1895 (Section 6) replaced the Registration Ordinance No. 8 of 1883 (Section 15). The replaced section stated that with the exception of a will or probate, no instrument could be registered unless it contained a statement describing the boundaries, extent and situation of the land.”
We are thus reassured that it was not the entire Ordinance of 1883 that was replaced, but only a section of it. This position accords with the decision in the case of Dofah v. Awoonor Williams,[10] decided in 1922, when the court alluded to the 1883 Ordinance (Cap 90) in dealing with the rights of the parties.[11]
Smyly CJ proceeded to lay the principle regarding registration of an instrument under the Ordinance thus: “… [t]hat while registration under the Ordinance gives priority to instruments registered, over instruments unregistered or subsequently registered, the Registration Ordinance (Cap. 90) gives no priority to a registered conveyance over a prior verbal sale made according to native custom; in other words, registration does not abolish the native custom as to the sale of land.”
It is a notorious fact that the Ordinance was eventually revised by the Land Registry Ordinance, Cap.133 (1951 rev). Section 5 of the revised Ordinance made the registration of “instruments” permissible and not compulsory, while section 21 gave priority to registered instruments.[12]
In Lartey v. Nettey,[13] the Court of Appeal held thus: “The applicable law on registration of land title in 1959 was the Land Title Registry Ordinance, Cap 133; the said Ordinance made registration optional. Failure to register Exhibit C therefore does not render the defendant’s grantor’s title invalid.”
The number of instruments registered generally in the Gold Coast under the Land Registry Ordinances was fairly modest. Between 1920 to 1940, a total of 19,794 instruments were registered, of which the vast majority were conveyances in the English form.[14] During the three years prior to the Second World War, 1,067 instruments were registered in 1937, 1,008 in 1938 and 1,145 in 1939.[15]
Land Registry Act Regime (Post 1962)
It has been argued by authorities such as Kasanga and Kotey that the failure of the Ordinances to insist on the use of cadastral maps and accurate plans for land registration fueled the enactment of the Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122) which provided for the registration of deeds.[16] Registration was made compulsory for all instruments affecting land except a will and a judge’s certificate in order to be valid as was decided in Asare v. Brobbey[17] thus: “Before 2 November 1962, there was nothing like compulsory registration of documents relating to land. Such documents if they remained unregistered lost only their priority. However since November 1962, all documents relating to land must be registered in order to have any legal effect at all. This is an innovation and it has such serious consequences that no conveyancer should fail to advise his client to comply with section 24 of Act 122.”[18]
The Act also provided that instruments for registration must have a site plan or a map that describes the land. The importance of registration under Act 122 basically was to serve as actual notice of the instrument to all persons and for all purposes as at the date of the registration. Although the operation of the Deeds Registry helped to identify transactions related to land, it failed to confer title on the individual who held the deed.[19] Suffice to say that the Act dealt with the registration of deeds and instruments, but did not guarantee title. Apaloo C.J. in Ussher v. Darko,[20] held inter alia thus:[21] “The Registration of a deed under Act 122 did not constitute a state-guaranteed title.”
Archer J. (as he then was), on the operations and effect of registration under the Land Registry Act (Act 122) in the case of Kwofie v. Kakraba[22] surmised thus: “Indeed the Lands Registry does not undertake investigation of title for parties. The registry merely registers a document registrable on delivery of particulars and on payment of the assessed fees. Registration does not import state-guaranteed title. It is only where the parties have taken their respective grants from the same grantor or his privy that registration confers priority on the party who has registered his document. Where the parties derive their titles from different grantors, registration is of no consequence and the court will not neglect its duty to ascertain who has valid title. In other words, registration will not confer any legal right or title on any party who took his grant from a person who had no title at all to convey.”[23]
The principle as regards registration under Act 122 flowered to fruition in John Kwadwo Bobie v. 21st Century Construction Co. Ltd & Ors.[24], when Pwamang JSC decided as follows: “The settled law is that registration of instruments affecting land under the Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122) is not a guarantee of title to the land where the person who is registered is not the true owner of the land.”
Conveyancing Act, 1973 (N.R.C.D. 175)
In 1973, the Conveyancing Act, (N.R.C.D. 175) instituted a new regime for oral grants under customary law. It was made compulsory for all oral grants in land under customary law to be recorded before they could be given legal effect,[25] but as Da Rocha & Lodoh observed, “This attempt, however, failed because the machinery for recording such transactions under the Decree could not be provided …” According to a Croatian proverb, “An empty sack sings in the air.” The uncertainty surrounding the true state of the mandatory recording of oral grant was arrested by the Supreme Court in the case of In Re Bonney (Dec’d); Bonney v. Bonney[26] when their Lordships unburdened themselves with clarity that the provision on the mandatory recording of oral grants was impliedly revoked in 1986 by the Land Title Registration Law (P.N.D.C.L. 152).
The Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 152)/Dual Registration Regimes
The weakness in the Land Registry Act, 1962 in conferring state-guaranteed title impelled the enactment of the Land Title Registration Law, 1986. The object of the new legislation, as gleaned from its Memorandum, was for the Act to provide machinery for the registration of title and interest in land.[27] The Minister of Lands was mandated by the Act, by way of legislative instrument, to designate places as registration districts where titles and interests in land could be registered. It was intended that at least 70% of land owners in the declared district would register their lands before declaring new districts.[28]
The Act provided that where an area is declared by the Minister as a registration district, deeds registration must cease. In the reverse, until a place was designated as a registration district, deeds registration under the old law (Land Registry Act (Act 122) lingered on.
Section 135 of PNDCL 152 clearly defined the scope of the two statutes as follows:
“135. Application
This Act (PNDCL 152) is applicable in an area declared a registration district under section 5.
Until this Act becomes applicable under subsection (1) to a particular area, the registration of instruments affecting land situated in the area shall continue to be done in accordance with the Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122).”
The effect of the provision was that deeds or Instruments continued to be registered at the Deeds Registry of the Lands Commission under the tutelage of the Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122), while land titles and interests were registered in places declared to be registration districts under the framework of the Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDCL 152). Registration of titles to lands under the Land Title Registration Law conferred upon the person the mark of “indefeasibility”[29], which, theoretically, rendered the title secured, unimpeachable and “bulletproof.”[30]
The Supreme Court held in Samuel Kwasi Ntiri Narko Konkai Tawiah v. Gbawe Mantse Adam Kwatei Quartey[31] as follows: “The registration regime under the Land Registry Act was registration of instruments so the accuracy of the site plans under that system was not guaranteed but under the title registration put in place by PNDCL 152, the parcel of cadastral plans are eminently accurate as the registration regime there is title registration.”[32]
In Dora Boateng v. Mckeown Investment,[33] Amegatcher JSC in his lamentations of registration under Act 122 underscored thus: “Typically, with registration under Act 122, innocent purchasers for value no matter how diligent their inquiries are always susceptible to falling victim to unscrupulous members of families or subjects of stools who indulge in multiple sales of land.”
The inaccuracy of site plans prepared under the Land Registry Act likely undermined the reliability of registered instruments, making it unjustifiable to grant them title status. The Yorubas say, “A house built with saliva will be washed away by a moving dew.”
The Lands Act 2020/Multiple Registration Regimes
The Land Act consolidated the provisions of the Land Registry Act 1962 and the Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 152) among other land enactments. The new Act created a three-tier registration and recording systems to wit; registration of instruments (deeds) relating to land, registration of title, interests and rights in land and the recording of customary interests and rights.[34]
Registration of Titles and Interests in Land
The scheme under the Land Title Registration Law, where the Minister of Lands was mandated to declare an area as a registration district for the registration of titles was reproduced in the Land Act.[35] Under section 83 of the Act, a person or customary entity may register land if they are (a) the allodial owners; (b) holder of the common law freehold; (c) holder of the customary law freehold; (d) holder of usufuctuary interest; (e) holder of a leasehold interest of not less than three years at the time of registration; or (f) holder of a customary tenancy.[36] It needs reiterating the point that titles and interests in land are registrable in areas declared by the Minister of Lands as registration districts. Similar to section 135 of P.N.D.C.L. 152, deeds registration are to truncate in areas declared as registration districts.
Section 89 of the Land Act provides:
“Declaration of registration district
89. (1) The Minister may, on the advice of the Commission, by legislative instrument declare an area specified in the legislative instrument to be a registration district.
(2) Where an area is declared by the Minister to be a registration district in accordance with subsection (1), deeds registration and plotting in relation to deeds registration shall cease to be applicable in that designated registration district.”
It is provided under section 119 of the Land Act that a person whose land is registered in a registration district acquires an indefeasible title.
Currently, the Greater Accra Region is the only region in Ghana fully operating title registration.[37] The region has an approximate area of 3,245 square kilometres constituting 1.4% of Ghana’s 238,533 square kilometre total land size.
Aside the Greater Region, two registration districts have been created in the Ashanti and the Central Regions respectively. The former is in respect of part of Kumasi lands.[38] The Legislative Instrument which created the Kumasi registration district in 1994, L.I. 1590, covered land of “an area of 30,980.82 hectares (76,331.22 acres or 43,891.36 sq. kilometres or 119.27 sq. miles)”. A simple calculation would reveal that the figures are irreconcilable; particularly the 43,891.36 sq. kilometres, which is more than the entire Ashanti region land of 24,869 sq. kilometres. The surveyors would attest to the fact that it is a palpable error[39] as it is supposed to be around 309 sq. kilometres, constituting 0.13% and 1.24% of Ghana’s and the Ashanti region’s land sizes respectively. It is disappointing that over 30 years since the passage of the L.I., the error has not been rectified.
About the registration district in the Central region, it was in 2007 that it was created by L.I. 1914 and affected lands at Kasoa and its environs in the Awutu Senya district.[40] It covered an area of 14,018.65 acres or 5,673.17 hectares equivalent to 56.732 square kilometres (representing 0.0238% of Ghana’s total land size).
Some legal commentators include parts of Winneba to the list of registration districts in Ghana.[41] While Land Title Registration office is reported to have been opened in Winneba[42], it needs clarifying the point that the office cannot register title to Winneba lands. This is because, although Winneba was one of the towns within the Awutu Senya district,[43] it fell outside the schedule illuminating the lands in L.I. 1914.
Central region has a land size of 9,908 square kilometres, indicating that the total land size of both the Ashanti and the Central regions is 34,777 square kilometres, and out of that figure, only 365.732 square kilometres representing 1.05% of the lands within the two regions have been declared as registration districts, signifying 0.1553% of Ghana’s entire land.
The consequence is that all the lands falling within the Greater Accra region and the two registration districts in the Ashanti and Central regions respectively, are less than 2% of the entire land size of Ghana. Curiously, not a single registration district has been created in any of the remaining thirteen regions of Ghana.
It could be gleaned from Part 5 of the Land Act, which commences from section 83 to section 205 that Title Registration alone covers 123 sections, while Part 6 on Deeds Registration captured under section 206 to section 232 has only 27 sections. In a way, the vast majority of Ghanaians owning lands in the thirteen regions and the numerous towns and villages in the Ashanti and Central Regions covering an area of about 98% of the entire lands of Ghana are deprived of the state-guaranteed titles of their lands under Part 5 of the Land Act.
While section 206 of the Land Act allows the Land Registrar to apply the provisions on title registration to deeds registration with modifications, the nuances between the two systems demand careful adaptation.
Section 98 of the Land Act, for instance, deserves attention in this context. It reads as follows:
“Resolution of land dispute
98. (1) An action concerning any land or interest in land in a registration district shall not be commenced in any court unless the procedure for resolution of disputes under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) have been exhausted.”
The provision makes it mandatory for a person having a claim concerning land or an interest in land to exhaust Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms before instituting an action in court. In a registration district, an action concerning any land or an interest in land cannot be taken to court unless there has been an attempt at ADR.
The Supreme Court, relying on an earlier decision[44] determined on a similar provision in PNDCL 152, explicated the true import of the section in the case of Republic v. High Court (Labour Court 1); Ex Parte A & C Development Company Limited: Gladys Forson, Liberty Estate Agency & James Orleans-Lindsay (Interested Parties),[45] that whenever in a registration district, a dispute arises in the course of registration of title to land or interest therein at the Land Title Registry, no party to such a dispute shall commence an action in respect of the dispute in any court until the ADR mechanisms had been exhausted. It was expounded that a party can commence an action in court in a registration district without first resorting to ADR, if the dispute is not about the registration of title or interest in land.[46] The precondition to exhaust ADR mechanisms before commencing an action in court under section 98 of the Land Act is inapplicable to lands located outside registration districts.
We may also take into account the provision of section 182 (4) of the Land Act which makes it unlawful for an allodial holder, in a registration district, to dispose of land not wholly registered. However, there is no such prohibition on allodial holders from alienating their lands that fall outside registration districts.[47]
Registration of Instruments
The Deeds registration which operated under the Land Registry Act was incorporated into the Land Act. The instruments affecting land that are registrable include: (a) a conveyance; (b) a vesting assent; (c) a certificate of purchase issued by a court; (d) a certificate issued under the Borrowers and Lenders Act; (e) a power of attorney; (f) a caveat or a restriction; (g) a statutory declaration; and (h) a court judgment.[48]
It needs reiterating the point that the registration of instruments at the Deeds Registry operates in all areas in Ghana except places declared as registration districts. It bears emphasis that the registration of instruments, unlike the registration of title in registration districts cloaked with indefeasibility, does not ensure a state-guaranteed title upon registration. Registration of instruments may constitute actual notice of the instrument to third parties,[49] and generally takes priority according to the order in which they were presented to the Land Registry for registration.[50]
It could be seen that title registration generally does not allow for double or multiple registrations of the same land or interest in the land, hence when there is a conflicting claim, they are first resolved[51] before the Land Registrar can proceed with the registration of the land.[52] However, multiple registrations may exist under deeds registration, except that priority is customarily given to the first in time, and efforts are similarly made to resolve issues pertaining to them through ADR in recent times.
Title registration may loosely be compared to a marriage contracted under the Ordinance, (the Marriage Ordinance, Cap. 127), which is purely monogamous and secures the marriage from future intruders/suitors, while Deeds registration is synonymous with customary marriage which is potentially polygamous, notwithstanding its registration under the law.[53]
We are reminded that only lands in three regions in Ghana have been declared as registration districts since 1986; the rest of the country operates the deeds registration. Sad to say, lands registered in places such as Cape Coast, Takoradi, Sunyani, Koforidua, Ho, Wa, Bolgatanga and Tamale are all deeds registration and have no state-guaranteed titles.
Like the regime under the Land Title Registration Law, it is the registration done in the designated registration districts that confers indefeasible title on the person in whose favour the land was registered.
Despite the guarantee that title registration in registration districts receives from the State, fraud and other vitiating factors, such as mistake and misrepresentation tend to weaken the potency of title registration, thereby leading to their cancellation by the courts,[54] as discernible from a plethora of cases.[55]
In Rev. Hanson Mettle & Another v. Nana Asare & Another,[56] the court held: “The registration of land under the Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDCL 152) constitutes an acquisition of a state-guaranteed title to the disputed land … they have acquired an indefeasible title in the subject matter of the litigation, which can only be cancelled when there is proof of fraud or misrepresentation.”
Therefore, in Emmanuel Ablade Glover v. Dee & 3 Others,[57] the Court of Appeal, per Avril J.A. (as she then was), cancelled the Plaintiff’s land title certificate on ground of fraud and restored the documents of the adversary that had been registered under Act 122.
The Supreme Court has however issued a caution to the courts that it is not every allegation of fraud in the title registration that should induce the court to cancel a registered title; there must be an actual fraud.[58]
Recording of Customary Interests and Rights
Unlike the registration of titles and interests in land in registration districts and the registration of instruments or deeds outside registration districts done directly by the Land Registrar (of the Lands Commission), the recording of customary interests and rights are done by the Customary Land Secretariats of the various customary land-holding entities, being the Stool, Skin, Clan or Family. The records of the Customary Land Secretariats become evidence of transactions in relation to land in the area and in appropriate cases serve as notice of the transaction to the world.[59] It is noteworthy that a land transaction recorded by the Customary Land Secretariats, unlike the deeds registration which alternate with title registration in registration districts, can further be re-registered by the Land Title Registry or the Deeds Registry depending on the location of the land.[60]
The Multiple Land Registration Regimes – Implications for the Courts
Land registration enactments sometimes seem strict and unconscionable; as a result, some judges in the past, with burning passion, were compelled to comment on their harsh impact. We recall with nostalgia the exposition of Archer J. (as he then was) in Otoo v. Biney & Another[61] thus: “The law, it is said, is an unruly steed. So is section 21 of the Land Registry Ordinance. I have tried in vain to invite her to the river banks of equity and good conscience to drink deep in order to mitigate her rigour; but she has declined the invitation because Parliament has bestowed upon her an immutable will replete with self-righteousness and self-sufficiency. With the greatest reluctance therefore I am compelled to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim.”
The multiple land registration regimes in Ghana are undoubtedly complicated and come with significant implications for the courts, especially when construing instruments registered in the past. In Coleman v. Tripollen & 4 Ors.,[62]the Court of Appeal, confronted with an instrument registered on 29th December 1908 held that: “This was long before the Land Registry Act, 1962 [Act 122] came into existence. Therefore the non-registration of the indenture would not affect its admissibility in terms of section 24 of the Land Registration Act, (sic) Act 122.”[63]
The decision seems to create the impression that there was no land registration system in place in 1908 when in fact there was one.[64] Perhaps, their Lordships were influenced by the provisions of Cap 133 of 1951 which made registration of a deed optional. It is worthy of note that it was only the 1951 revised Ordinance which made registration voluntary, but not the preceding or later enactments.
Beyond the historical challenges, interpreting some provisions of the land registration law has sometimes been problematic for the courts. In Madam Randy Lartey & 2 Ors. v. Yaw Aboah Djin & Anor.,[65] the Supreme Court gave a glimpse of this stark reality in dealing with the issue of first registration of a proprietor under PNDCL 152 thus: “Given the differences in opinion this has generated between the superior court justices and also between counsel representing the parties, we deem it appropriate to revisit the legal issue and to give the necessary guidance for the benefit of all stakeholders in land registration.”
In Anthony Wiafe v. Dora Borkai Bortey and Victoria Amoo,[66] the appellant had raised as a ground, that with the effective commencement of PNDCL 152 following the declaration of Accra as a registrable district, Act 122 ceased to apply for purposes of registration of land in Accra. Although the appellant did not argue the ground, the Supreme Court nonetheless stated thus: “As Act 122 remains law, registration under it is still acceptable …”
It is doubtful whether by virtue of section 135 of P.N.D.C.L. 152, the registration of the instrument at the Deeds Registry under Act 122 in Accra was permissible after it had been declared a registration district. The Apex Court’s restatement of the law should be understood in the context that Act 122 continued to apply after the enactment of PNDCL 152 and the two statutes concurrently regulated land registration in Ghana, albeit at different areas depending on whether the place had been declared a registration district or fell outside the registration districts.
Without a doubt, their Lordships’ expatiation of the effect of declaration of a registration district under PNDCL 152 on a prior registered deed under Act 122 and the distinction in the registration under the two enactments were edifying. After indicating that Act 122 remains valid and registration under it was acceptable, their Lordships added: “…save that the holder stands a risk of being defeated on account of priority of registration by another person who has registered under P.N.D.C.L. 152. And even under section 13 (3) of PNDCL 152 persons who had registered under Act 122 were required to re-register under the new law. Thus, registration under Act 122 must be followed by a re-registration under PNDCL 152 in order to secure the indefeasible title that the new law ensures to the holder. But registration under Act 122 gives notice of an interest in the land and puts him on the inquiry which a search result will disclose.”
We gather from the Court’s statement above that registration of land under both regimes is possible. Where an instrument has been registered at the Deeds Registry and the place is later declared a registration district, a re-registration of title with the Title Registry becomes prudent. Since recording of customary law grants by the Customary Land Secretariats can be re-registered at the Deeds Registry, if the area is later declared a registration district, a further re-registration at the Title Registry may be done and that will mean the land would have been registered under all the three registration regimes of the Land Act.
We also noticed that the Supreme Court, in examining the effect of the Plaintiff’s registered title in the recent case of Adolf Tetteh Adjei v. Anas Aremeyaw Anas & Another,[67] held through Mensah JSC thus: “Although the respondent succeeded in registering the grant with the Land Title Registry and obtained a land title certificate for it, the registration did not affect the appellant’s earlier customary grant. In Anyidoho v. Markham [1905] Ren. 318 FC, (a case adopted by the Supreme Court in Brown and Quarshigah supra) the principle of law was stated that a customary law transfer was unaffected by registration of any subsequent conflicting documentary conveyance.” (emphasis supplied).
While the principle, in my view, was generally stated correctly by His Lordship, the case of Anyidoho v. Markham cited in support, with respect, does not seem to fit the bill. It must be noted that the said case was decided in 1905[68] at a time the registration regime was deeds registration and not title registration (like the Adolf Tetteh v. Anas case which was before their Lordships) and the two have different legal ramifications.
Further, while a right acquired under customary law, under both section 46 (1) (f) of the Land Title Registration Law and section 121 (1) (f) of the Land Act, can pierce the indefeasibility concept to override a registered title, authorities decided under any of the said provisions where a prior customary grant emerged superior against title registration like Fred Adormson & 2 Others v. Emmanuel Kofi Tetteh[69] would have been more appropriate to prop up the principle on that occasion than the 1905 Anyidoho case.
Equally important to judges and lawyers is the fact that it is not every customary law grant which can override a subsequent registered title. It is only a prior customary law grant where the person was in actual occupation of the land.
For ease of reference, I reproduce the relevant portion of section 46 (1) of the Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 152) here for its full effect.
“46. Overriding interests
(1) Unless the contrary is recorded in the land register a land or an interest in land registered under this Act is subject to any of the following overriding interests whether or not they are entered in the land register as may for the time being subsist and affect that land or interest … (f) rights, whether acquired by customary law or otherwise, of a person in actual occupation of the land except where enquiry is made of that person and the rights are not disclosed …” (my emphasis).
Per the above provision, even where the person with a customary law right was in actual possession of the land but it was not disclosed when an enquiry was made, the customary law grant simpliciter would be incapable of defeating the registered title.
The Brown v. Quarshigah case[70] which was also cited by the Supreme Court and indeed is often cited by most courts when discussing land registration, deserves our careful consideration. At page 942 of the report, the Apex Court explicitly held: “A customary law grant cannot therefore be registered.” Decided over two decades ago, the law has since progressed. Now, under the Land Act, customary law grants are registrable. It is therefore crucial that in citing Brown v. Quarshigah or any precedent under land registration, great circumspection is exercised by the courts to ensure that they fit into the same registration category and have similar effects.
Under the multiple land registration regimes created by the Land Act which requires customary grants to be recorded by Customary Land Secretariats so as to serve as a notice, it is not known how unregistered or unrecorded customary law grants will fare against registered titles and instruments, especially where the person is not in actual possession of the land.[71] Put differently, would customary law grants continue to receive the sympathy of the courts in the same manner they had enjoyed in the past against registered titles even when they had not been recorded in accordance with the law to serve as notice?
Perhaps, we will be entering into a similar phase when undocumented customary law grants, which had always prevailed against registered titles, stood helpless the way it did some time ago in Gliksten (West Africa) Ltd. v. Appiah,[72] when the Court of Appeal flipped the script against customary law in favour of a statutory right thus: “[e] ven if the holder of customary rights is on the land before the grant of the certificate of the court validating the concession, the title of the concessionaire takes precedence over the holder of customary rights.”
Finally, as regards the Adolf Tetteh v. Anas case supra, the Supreme Court in justifying its decision, further made reference to its previous decision in Awudu v. Tetteh[73] which had held that registration per se does not confer title on a person; what mattered was the underlying facts. Awudu v. Tetteh belongs to the class of cases,[74] it seems to me, that their Lordships treated title registration without giving due consideration to its protective shield of indefeasibility.
If title registration does not give the assurance of ownership as articulated by their Lordships, then it is arguably no better than deeds registration. It was thought, respectfully, that because the law views the rights of a registered proprietor as indefeasible,[75] the courts in determining cases involving registered titles would begin their analysis by recognizing the indefeasibility status conferred on the proprietor before weighing the factors that could override or warrant their cancellation.[76]
Gladly, the Supreme Court seemed to have eventually provided the much needed assurance bountifully in that regard in the case of Suberu vrs. Davidson & 13 Ors.,[77] when Amegatcher JSC in his concurring opinion illuminated in clear terms as follows: “An indefeasible title to land essentially suggests that title in a registered property cannot be defeated, cancelled, voided, or nullified by any errors or omissions in the title. Accordingly, once a proprietor has been entered into the land register, no claim inconsistent with the title on the register can be enforced against the proprietor of the said land. As such, where two or more people are litigating over land and one person has a registered title over the disputed land, his title cannot be challenged even if his conveyance was void or if there were defects with his lessor’s title … The whole essence of the reforms to introduce land registration in Ghana was to give finality to purchasers of land and security against adverse claims which the deed registration system could not guarantee. Consequently, when a claim is being made against a registered proprietor of the land, it is enough for him to wave his land certificate as a defence to any adverse claims.”
In acknowledging that the system, being a human institution, has its own flaws, His Lordship highlighted the exceptions such as fraud, mistake, omission or other vitiating factors provided by the law that can warrant the rectification of the land register.
Section 111 of the Land Act provides additional guarantee to proprietors of registered title thus: “An entry in the land register shall be conclusive evidence of title of the holder of the interest specified in the land register.” (my emphasis).
Conclusion
In navigating Ghana’s complex land landscape, judges and lawyers must appreciate the nuances of multiple registration regimes under the Land Act. Recognizing the distinct dynamics of each regime – whether title, deeds or customary, will enable a more precise application of the law and citation of relevant cases. By doing so, justice can better be served in land matters and that can go a long way to untangle Ghana’s knotty land issues.
It has further been observed that the distinction in the registration of titles, interests and rights in places designated as registration districts and the registration of instruments in non-registration districts by the Land Registrar have sometimes created confusion for landowners and users. Persons who register their instruments at the Deeds Registry often assume that by successfully registering their instruments, the security of title to their lands is state-guaranteed, when in fact, they are not.
The law introducing the concept of registration districts to regulate title registration was enacted four decades ago. If after forty-years, over ninety-eight percent (98%) of Ghana’s entire land is covered by deeds registration without a state-guaranteed title, we cannot say Ghana has made significant strides in the area of land registration. The disparity is unfair and leaves many Ghanaians whose lands fall outside the registration districts vulnerable to land disputes. A prolonged delay for title registration throughout the country progressively widens the gate of land disputes as deeds registration under the Act has the latitude of registering multiple instruments relating to the same parcel of land.
To address the challenges, Ghana needs to expand the registration districts, increase access to formal land registration, and promote awareness about the importance of title registration. This will help ensure that all Ghanaians are able to secure their land rights and build a more stable future.
[1] See Effah Amponsah, Fredua A., Kwasi A. and Oppong K., Drivers of Customary Land Registration (Non) Compliance in Ghana, 30th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Australia, 14th-17th January, 2024.
[2] See Richmond J. Ehwi & Lewis A. Asante, Ex-Post Analysis of Land Title Registration in Ghana since 2008 Merger: Accra Lands Commission In Perspective, SAGE (April-June 2016 1-17).
[3] Sittie Rebecca, Land Title Registration: The Ghanaian Experience. (Available online).
[4] See also Bismark Aha Cashnoba, The Land Registration Law: A Panacea To The Land Registration Problems in Ghana? (4th June 2013) (Modern Ghana) and Raymond Abdulai and Anthony Owusu Ansah, Land Information Management And Landed Property Ownership Security: Evidence From State-Sponsored Courts. Habitat International Volume 42, April 2014 pages 131-137 and Osmanu Karimu Azumah and Sendawula, Land Rights in Ghana, Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 11 No. 6, June 2023.
[5] See Woodman Gordon, The Registration of Instruments Affecting Land (1975) RGL Vol. 7 Issue 1 at p. 46.
[6] See BJ Da Rocha & CHK Lodoh, Ghana Land Law and Conveyancing, 2nd Edn. at p. 429.
[7] See Agbosu L.K., Land Registration in Ghana: Past Present and Future. Journal of African Law, Vol. 34, Issue 2 Pages 104-127.
[8] See Benjamin Armah Quaye, Factors Impacting on the Effective Implementation of Land Title Registration – A Perspective From Ghana. Journal of Planning And Land Management Volume 1, Issue 2 (2020).
[9] See the 2018 British Library Archives Programmes titled: “Salvaging the Historical Heritage of Land Registration Documents of the Archives of Land Registration Division and Lands Commission of Ghana.”
[10] (1922) F.C. 99 at p. 103.
[11] Moubarak v. Japour (1944) 10 W.A.C.A 102, however referred to Cap. 112.
[12] See Arkroful v. Sey [1980] GLR 752, per Osei Hwere J. (as he then was).
[13] [2010-2012] 1 GLR 370 at p. 380.
[14] Kokomlemle Consolidated Cases [1951] D.C. (Land) ’48-‘51, 312.
[15] See British Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. v. Roura and Forgas Ltd. [1964] GLR 190 at p. 209-210.
[16] See Kasanga R. and Kotey N., Land Management in Ghana: Building on Tradition and Modernity, London, England. International Institute for Environment and Development. (2001).
[17] [1971] 2 GLR 331 at p. 337.
[18] See Asare v. Brobbey [1971] 2 G.L.R. 331 & Ayitey v. Mantey [1984-86] 1 GLR 552, C.A.
[19] See Suberu v. Davidson & Ors., Civil Appeal No. J4/28/2021, dated 10th May, 2023, S.C., Unreported; Botchway v. Okine [1987-88] 2 GLR 1, C.A., Marina Hotel Ltd. v. Stephen Ofosu Mensah [2016] 92 G.M.J. 141, 145-146; Osae and Others v. Adjeifio and Others [2008-2009] 1 G.L.R. 606, 419-420 & Lamptey v. Hammond [1987-88] 1 GLR 288.
[20] [1977] 1 GLR 376, C.A.
[21] At pages 453-454 of the Report.
[22] [1966] G.L.R. 229 at p. 231.
[23] See also Roland Kofi Dwamena v. Richard Nortey Otoo & The Regional Lands Officer [2017] 113 G.M.J. 46 at p. 53-63; Botchway v. Okine [1987-88] 2 GLR 1 and Osei v. Adjeifio [2008-2009] 1 GLR 606.
[24] [2016] 100 G.M.J. 73 at p. 80,S.C.
[25] See Sections 4 to 11 of NRCD 175.
[26] [1993-94] 1 GLR 610.
[27] See Boyefio v. NTHC [1997-98] 1 GLR 768 at p. 771.
[28] See Rebecca Sittie, Land Title Registration: The Ghanaian Experience, Munich, Germany, October 8-13, 2006.
[29] See Section 43 of P.N.D.C.L 152.
[30] Subject to the overriding interests under section 46 (1) of the P.N.D.C.L. 152.
[31] Civil Appeal No. J4/29/2004, dated 18th October, 2006, S.C., Unreported.
[32] Ussher v. Darko [1977] 1 GLR 470, C.A. referred.
[33] [2019-2020] 2 SCGLR 477.
[34] See Section 80 of the Land Act.
[35] See Section 89 (1) of the Land Act.
[36] Registrable interests under Section 81 of the Land Act include; allodial title, common law freehold, customary law freehold, usufructuary interest, leasehold interest and customary tenancy. A mortgage, easement, restrictive covenant, profit a prendre, power of attorney, a contractual licence and a user right under a Certificate of Allocation are enumerated under Section 82 of the Land Act as registrable rights.
[37] See L.I.’s such as Accra District 02, L.I. 1536 made 17th July 1992; Accra District 03, L.I. 1356 made 5th February 1988; Tema District 018, L.I. 1609 made 11th May, 1995 and Tema District 019, L.I. 1608, made 11th May 1995. More than 20 Legislative Instruments were made to change the whole of Accra from Deeds Registry to Title Registration.
[38] Kumasi covers a total land area of approximately 254 square kilometers.
[39] Credits go to Surveyor Anthony Arko Adjei of Accra and Surveyor Beatrice Kom of Tema who were consulted for confirmation and verification of the dimensions in the course of writing this paper.
[40] Courtesy Awutu-Effutu Senya District 01, L.I. 1914 made on 5th November, 2007.
[41] See for instance, Elizabeth Ashun and Theodosia Tandoh, Key Highlights of Ghana’s Land Act, 2020, Lex Africa, 26th April, 2022 & CBC Properties, Differences Between A Titled Land And Plotted (Registered) Land? July 17th, 2018.
[42] See for instance, Modern Ghana news publication on 2nd February 2010 titled, Land Title Registration Office opens in Winneba,
[43] The District has since been split.
[44] See Boyefio v. NTHC Properties Ltd. [1996-97] SCGLR 531.
[45] Civil Motion No. J5/63/2022, dated 26th July, 2022, S.C., Unreported, per Pwamang JSC.
[46] Such as trespass of a boundary dispute, an action for specific performance, ejectment and recovery of possession only.
[47] Section 182 (6) of the Land Act.
[48] See Section 207 (1) of the Land Act.
[49] See Section 228 (1) of the Land Act.
[50] See Section 229 of the Land Act.
[51] The Deeds Registry also resorts to ADR in the resolution of disputes relating to Deeds Registration.
[52] See Section 115 and 106 of the Land Act.
[53] See Customary Marriages and Divorce (Registration) Law, 1985 (P.N.D.C.L. 112).
[54] See Section 195 of the Land Act.
[55] See also, Numo Nortey Adjeifio (substituted by Nii Adjei Sankuma) & 2 Ors. v. Tesa [2012] 48 G.M.J. 65 at p. 101-102; The Registered Trustees of the Catholic Church, Achimota Accra v. Buildaf & 2 Others [2015] 91 G.M.J. 36-37; Roland Kofi Dwamena v. Richard Nortey Otoo & The Regional Lands Officer [2017] 113 G.M.J. 46 at p. 61-62.
[56] Suit No. LD/1096/2018, dated 12th June 2019, H.C. Unreported per Abodakpi J.
[57] [2018] DSCA 4705.
[58] See Suberu v. Davidson & 13 Others supra & Seidu Mohamed v. Saanbaye Kangberee [2012] 2 SCGLR 1182 at pp. 1202-1203.
[59] See Section 15 (3) of the Land Act.
[60] See for instance, section 83 (1) of the Land Act.
[61] [1966] G.L.R. 90 at pages 144-145..
[62] [2017] 70 G.M.J. 20 at 42-43.
[63] The decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 28th November, 2018 in Civil Appeal No. J4/41/2018, Unreported, per Dotse JSC.
[64] See the Land Registry Ordinances,1883 (Cap. 90) and 1885 (Cap. 112).
[65] [2022] 177 G.M.J. 89, S.C.
[66] Civil Appeal No. J4/43/2015, dated 1st June, 2016, S.C., Unreported.
[67] Civil Appeal No. J4/08/2025, dated 12th November, 2025, S.C., Unreported, per Mensah JSC.
[68] Anyidoho v. Markham was even overruled in Arkaah & Co. v. The Tarquah Mining Exploration Co. (1911) Ren. 601, 604 and Hochman v. Akhurst (1920) 1 F.C. 102, albeit on different ground.
[69] Suit No. H1/173/2012, dated 28th February, 2013, C.A. (Unreported).
[70] [2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 930.
[71] See Section 121 (2) of the Land Act.
[72] [1967] GLR 447.
[73] [2011] 1 SCGLR 366.
[74] See In Re Agbenu (Dec’d); Agbenu v. Agbenu [2009] SCGLR 636 at pp. 638-639; Anim v. Dzandi [2015] 83 G.M.J. 56 at p. 74 and Appolo Cinemas Estates (Gh.) Ltd. v. Chief Registrar of Lands [2003-2005] 1 G.L.R. 167 at Holding 3.
[75] See Section 43 of P.N.D.C.L. 152 and Section 119 of the Land Act.
[76] As was decided by Twum JSC in Brown v. Quarshigah [2003-20004] 2 SCGLR 930 at pp. 945-947.
[77] Civil Appeal. No. J4/28/2021, dated 10th May, 2023, S.C., Unreported.
