At any rate, when section 18(1) speaks of the “land register being conclusive evidence of the title of the proprietor”, that does not mean that other primary documents to the acquisition of land are unimportant or unnecessary. My understanding is that where a person legally acquires land without any fraud or illegality in the process, then, the fact that his interest has been validly registered under PNDCL 152 and a Land Title Certificate issued therefore, makes the Title Certificate conclusive evidence of the title of the proprietor. Otherwise, the mere production of the Title Certificate, irrespective of any fraud indulged in by the proprietor in the process of the acquisition, guarantees the proprietor title to the parcel of land in question. That is the reason why the Court have power, under the Act, to cancel the Land Certificate if the Court determines that the Certificate has been acquired fraudulently or by mistake.
Duty to disclose pending litigation on registration
At the time of the processes leading to the issuance of the land certificate, as stated above, this suit was already pending. A duty was therefore cast on the 1st Defendant to inform the Registrar of the pendency of this action in order for the Registrar to hold the process in abeyance till the completion of the hearing of this case. The 1st Defendant tactically failed to do so in order that he may gain an undue advantage over the Plaintiff. In the Registered Trustees of the Catholic Church vs. Buildaf Ltd Mr. Abu and Mohammed Asamoa - Kwaning [ [2015] DLSC3234, this Court ruled with respect to the provision in section 12 of PNDCL 152 that: "This provision imposes a duty of full and complete disclosure of the pendency of litigation affecting the land that is sought to be registered. The policy decision behind this provision is clear in order to avoid conflicting decisions by two State institutions, a decision to register the land in the name of Mr. X by the Land Title Registry and a contrary decision by the Court that the same land belongs to Mr. Y.
An honest purchaser will not procure a land title certificate in respect of a parcel of land which is the subject matter of litigation whiles the suit was pending in court. An honest purchaser who has no intention to deceive the court and also practice fraud on his opponent will not procure a land certificate or a lease in respect of a parcel of land which is the subject matter of litigation secretly and at the blind side, not only of the court but also of his opponent in litigation. And so, the Court of Appeal was right when it referred and relied on the decision of this court in Chellaram & Sons (Ghana) Ltd. vs. Halabi [1963] 1 GLR 214 to the effect that: “A voluntary conveyance pendente lite has on it the badge of fraud; secrecy is always evidence of fraud, though it is not in itself conclusive; and a false statement of a material fact in a conveyance for valuable consideration showing part of the consideration for the transfer is also some evidence of fraud”.
This court, therefore, agrees with the finding of the Court of Appeal that the land certificate, allegedly, procured by the 1st Defendant herein was truly procured by fraud. The proof of the fraud, contrary to the submission of counsel, was embedded in the document, the land certificate itself, by virtue of the manner and the date on which it was procured and no further proof was required in order to cancel the fraudulent certificate.
