JUDGEMENT
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A:
In March 1997, our Supreme Court in a land mark decision in AMUZU V. OKLIKAH [1998-99] SCGLR, 141, unanimously held in holding [1] that:
“The Land Registry Act, 1962 [Act 122] did not abolish the equitable doctrines of notice and fraud; neither did it confer on a registered instrument a state-guarantee title. Consequently, a later instrument [such as exhibit B in the instant case] could only obtain priority over an earlier one by registration under section 24 [1] of Act 122 if it was obtained without notice and fraud of the earlier unregistered instrument. Since, in the instant case, the plaintiff had actual notice that the land was in some way encumbered, he would be held to have constructive notice of the earlier grant to the defendant. The Court of Appeal erred in holding otherwise”.
In the words of Sophia Akuffo JSC;
“Although the need to be a bonafide purchase without notice is not expressly stipulated in Act 122, once it is accepted that the object of th…