Section 12: disclosure of 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.
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.
The 2nd Defendant herein, did not adduce any evidence at all to show that the 1st Defendant ‘by an instrument in the prescribed form’ transferred his (1st Defendant’s) interest in the land in dispute to the 2nd Defendant. There is likewise no evidence on record to show that any such transfer has been effected by the registration of the 2nd Defendant as the proprietor of the land or the interest. Further, there is no evidence on record to the effect that any instrument transferring the land in dispute in the name of the 2nd Defendant has been filed as required by the provisions of section 79 of PNDCL 152.
