Be that as it may, at the date the Plaintiffs commenced their action in 2009, the prevailing law on limitation was the LIMITATION ACT (NRCD 54). Section 5 (2) of NRCD 54, provides as follows: “(2) A person shall not bring an action on a judgment after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable”. [48] The provisions of section 5 of NRCD 54 are applicable to proceedings against the State in the words of section 30 of NRCD 54 as follows: “30. Application of Act (1) This Act applies to proceedings by or against the Republic as if the Republic were a private individual.
See Limitation Act, 1970 NRCD 54, section 4(1)(b), which provides that in the case of an action founded on simple contract, a person shall not bring an action after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued
Adverse possession and extinction of the owner’s title
Adverse possession must be open, visible and unchallenged so that it gives notice to the legal/paper owner that someone was asserting a claim adverse to his. And section 10 of the Limitation Act 1972 (NRCD 54) has substantially reflected the English Statutes of Limitation and the Common Law. Under the present law, the person claiming to be in possession must show either (i) discontinuance by the paper owner followed by possession or (ii) dispossession or as it was sometimes called “ouster” of the paper owner if a squatter took possession of land belonging to another and remained in possession for twelve years to the exclusion of the owner, that would represent adverse possession and accordingly, at the end of twelve years, the title of the owner would be extinguished
Application of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833 in Ghana
In the Court below the defendant relied on the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, which he contended barred the claim of the plaintiff. Although the learned Judge rightly held that his finding of fact made it unnecessary to consider this point, he nevertheless expressed the view that the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, is not a statute of general application, and not applicable in this country. With the greatest respect, I am impelled on the authorities, e.g. Koney v. U.T.C. Limited (2 W.A.C.A. 188) to observe that he stated the law per incuriam with regard to the application of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833.
The Plaintiffs have failed to discharge their obligation under sections 11 and 17 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 1975 (NRCD 323), to adduce credible evidence in support of the facts they assert, to exempt them from the application of section 5 (2) of the LIMITATION ACT, 1972 (NRCD 54).
Effect of a finding that an action is statute-barred
Limitation is a defence available to a party against whom proceedings have been commenced. Though a party may have a right or claim at law, where proceedings are instituted outside of the time limits provided by the Statute of Limitations, that party may have its rights extinguished, except it is able to seek relief under exceptions provided within the statute, other law, or at equity. [45] Where the Court makes a finding that an action is statute- bared, it will not proceed to determine the merits of the case. This Court reaffirmed the position of the law in CIVIL APPEAL NO: J417/2016: JEAN HANNA ASSI V. ATTORNEY – GENERAL AND ORS DATED 9TH NOVEMBER 2016.
With regard to the last issue, viz., whether or not the claim is barred by statute, I am in full agreement with the views expressed by the Judge as follows:- "By section 6 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, where an Administrator claims, the time runs from the time of the deceased's death, and the same limitation applies to the plaintiff who has sued in respect of the estate of the deceased intestate. It is a statute of general application: Koney v. Union Trading Co. Ltd. (2) W.A.C.A. 188 at page 191). Nketsia died on the 16th day of January, 1927, and this suit was instituted on the 12th of May, 1956, a lapse of 29 years.
