The Board of Governors of O’Reilly Senior High School v Razzouk Kriaks & Anor (2025)

The Plaintiff per its writ of summons seeks the following reliefs

“1. A declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land containing an approximate area of 24.45 acres (9.896 hectares) known as Site for O’Reilly senior High School lying, situate and being at Okpoi Gonno in the Ledzokuku District of the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana measuring on the North a total distance of 764 feet more or less,

on the East a total distance of 1,576 feet, more or less, on the South a total distance of 555 feet, more or less and on the West a total distance of 1,636 feet, more or less.

2. An order for the recovery of possession from the defendants of any parts of the O’Reilly school land encroached upon by the Defendants.

3. An order of perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants, their agents, servants, assigns, workmen and anyone claiming through them from carrying out any activity, however described, on the land herein.

4. An order for the demolition of any development undertaken by the Defendants on the land herein.

5. Damages against the Defendants for trespass unto O’Reilly school land.”

The said claims are based on the following allegations as pleaded in its statement of claim. The Government of Ghana on 15th November 2012, , by an Executive Instrument known as State Lands (Accra- Okpoi Gonno Site for O’Reilly Senior High School) Instrument, 2012, E.I 18, acquired the disputed land measuring 24.45 acres for the O’Reilly Senior High School for use as its campus. After the acquisition the Plaintiff went into possession on or about the 3rd of December 2012 and developed buildings on same which were used as classrooms and offices. Sometime in August 2020 the Defendants trespassed unto portions of the land. According to the Plaintiff the encroachment has the tendency to disrupt academic work at the school. When all attempts to stop the trespass failed the present action was instituted to protect the school land, hence the reliefs listed supra.

THE DEFENDANTS CASE

The Defendants in their defence alleged that, they legally purchased the disputed land from one Daniel Boateng who before the purchase had a Land Title Certificate over same. When they enquired before the purchase, they were informed that there was a subsisting interest in the land which had been transferred to their grantor. This fact was confirmed when a search was conducted at the Lands Commission. According to the Defendants their grantor’s interest has been duly transferred to them by the Land Registration Division of the Lands Commission. They further claimed that all the adjoining lands are developed and occupied by private individuals and that the Plaintiff’s land has been walled to exclude their land. They maintained that the Plaintiff is not entitled to its reliefs and that they are not aware of any Executive Instrument affecting their land.

THE ISSUES

The issues settled for determination were

“i. Whether or not the land in dispute forms part of the larger parcel of land compulsorily acquired by the Government of Ghana under E.I 18, and if so.

ii. Whether or not E.I 18 extinguished the interests of everyone in the land in dispute, including the alleged grantor of the Defendants, and if so

iii. Whether or not the Defendants acquired any interests in the land in dispute.

iv. Whether or not the purported title certificate acquired by the Defendant is valid and confers a valid title in the land in dispute on the Defendants.”

The additional issues were

“1. Whether or not the Defendants have a valid legal interest in the land they occupy?

2. Whether or not the Defendant’s Land Title Certificate takes priority over any interest of the Plaintiff in the disputed land?

3. Whether or not the Defendant’s project/ structure has the tendency to disrupt and adversely affect academic work at the Plaintiff’s school?”

In my view issue “I” is the only germane issue among the 7 issues settled because if it is proven that the disputed land forms part of the land acquired under the STATE LANDS (ACCRA-OKPOI GONNO SITE FOR O”REILLEY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL) INSTRUMENT 2012 then any interest that the Defendants have is automatically extinguished.

BURDEN OF PROOF

In civil suits, the onus of proof first rests on the party whose positive assertions have been denied by his opponent. Depending on the admissions made or denied, the party on whom the burden of proof lies is enjoined by the provisions of Sections 10, 11(4), 12 and 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) to lead such credible and admissible evidence such that on the totality of the evidence on record, the court will find that party's version of the rival accounts more probable than its non-existence. In this case it is for the Plaintiff to prove that the disputed land forms part of the land acquired under

E.I. 18.

EVIDENCE LED BY PLAINTIFF ON ISSUE “i”

The evidence led by the Plaintiff was that on 15th November 2012, the Government of Ghana, by an Executive Instrument known as State Lands (Accra- Okpoi Gonno Site for O’Reilly Senior High School) Instrument, 2012, E.I 18, acquired a piece of land for the O’Reilly Senior High School for use as its campus. The acquired land contains an approximate area of 24.45 acres and is situated at Okpoi Gonno in the Ledzokuku Municipality of the Republic of Ghana. He tendered a copy of the Executive Instrument marked Exhibits B and the site plan also marked B1’ in evidence. According to the Plaintiff E.I 18 was subsequently published in the gazette on 14th December 2012. A copy of the gazette publication as was tendered and marked Exhibit “C’. That is the evidence led by the Plaintiff on the said issue.

EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE LED BY THE PLAINTIFF

Due to the probative value of the acquisition instrument I would reproduce same in his judgment. It states

“=========================================

EXECUTIVE INSTRUMENT

E, I, 18

STATE LANDS (ACCRA-OKPOI GONNO SITE FOR O”REILLEY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL)

INSTRUMENT 2012

WHEREAS it appears to the President that the land specified in the Schedule to this instrument is land required in the public interest

NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred on the President by subsection (1) of section 1 od the State Lands Act 1962 (Act 125) this instrument is made this Fifteenth day of November 2012

The land specified in the Schedule to this instrument is hereby declared to be land required in the public interest

SCHEDULE

ALL THAT PIECE OR PARCEL of land containing an approximate area of 24.45 acres (9.896 hectares) known as Site for O”reilly Senior High School situated at Okpoi Gonno in the Ledzokuku-Krowo District of the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana measuring on the North a total distance of 764 fwwt more or less and on the East a total distance of 1.576 feet more or less and on the South a total distance of 555 feet more or less and on the West a toral distance of 1636 feet more or less which piece or parcel of land is more particularly delineated on Plan No. LCS/GAR 678/85280 attached hereto and thereon shown edged pink.(Emphasis mine)

By Command of the PresidentnMIKE ALLEN HAMMAH (MP) Minister responsible for Lands and Natural Resources Date of Gazette notification: 14th December 2012.”

Curiously, the Plaintiff did not tender the acquisition Plan namely Plan No. LCS/GAR 678/85280 in evidence. It rather rendered an undated Plan in evidence marked Exhibit

B1. This court made an Order for the preparation of a composite plan and the parties were ordered to file survey instructions. The Plaintiff filed a Site plan bearing the Plaintiff’s name. When one compares that site plan with Exhibit B1 one would find that the two site plans are almost the same just that the one filed for the preparation of the composite plan has a date on it. It is dated 08-07-2008. If that was the date the site plan was prepared then it makes the case more bizarre because the land was acquired on the 15th of November 2012 so how come that the acquisition plan is dated 8th July 2008. Clearly the Plaintiff has wilfully suppressed Plan No. LCS/GAR 678/85280. When the witness for the Plaintiff was under cross-examination he conceded to the fact that there was a difference between the Exhibit B1 and the acquisition plan though he claimed the disparity was small. For emphasis he was asked

“Q. What was the size of land that was acquired under the EI 18? A.The size was clearly stated on the EI 18

Q.Can you tell the Court what was stated? A.Approximately 24.45 acres or 9.970 hectares

Q.Take a look at the attached site plan and tell us the size of that one

A. On the surface on Exhibit B1 the area is 24.617 acres or 9.970 hectares

Q. So you would agree with me that there is a disparity between the land acquired under EI 18 and the site plan attached to the EI

A. Yes, but the schedule talks about approximation and the area of 24.45 acres or 9.896 hectares so you can see that there is a small disparity with the figures on the schedule and that of the site plan

Q. I am putting it to you that the attached site plan generated by the Plaintiff has no correlation with EI 18

A. I disagree with you

Q. If you look at the schedule in Exhibit “B” it makes reference to a plan numbered LCS/GAR678/85280. Is that not so

A. It is so.

Q. That plan is not what is attached to your Exhibit “B” i.e. EI 18. I am putting it to you

A. No, The number is referring to layout of the area.”

That aside, it appeared during the cross-examination of the Court expert that Plan numbered LCS/GAR678/85280 was on his file but he chose to use Exhibit B1. For emphasis the said Expert was asked the following questions during cross-examination on the 4th of November 2024

“Q: I want you to take a look at the attached site plan of the Plaintiff’s survey instructions, can you tell the court on the face of that site plan when it was prepared.

A:  Is dated 8th July 2008.

Q: Is that the only site plan that was given to you by the Plaintiff for the conduct of this exercise?

A: There was another site plan on the file. I am not sure which of them were tendered in for the preparation of the composite plan. (Emphasis mine)

Q: So as you stand here, you cannot tell this court which of the site plan were used to conduct the survey work?

A: With the help of the acreage, the plan that was used for the preparation of the composite plan is the one dated 8th July 2008.

Q: For the records, you did not use plan number LCS/GAR678/85280 with and approximate area of 24.45 acres to conduct the composite plan.

A: That is so.”

The question begging for an answer is why did the Plaintiff fail or refuse to bring the acquisition plan numbered LCS/GAR678/85280 to court or use same for the preparation of the composite plan. The Composite Plan i.e. Exhibit CWE2 from the evidence was drawn with the Plan generated by the Plaintiff itself. It has nothing to do with E. I. 18.The dimensions of the acquisition stated in the Executive Instrument 18 would have no meaning unless it is related to the acquisition Plan. This is especially so as the search conducted by the Defendants at the Lands Commission show that the disputed land is not affected by any Government acquisition . See Exhibit RKI . Having regard to the forgone especially the evidence led by the Plaintiff on issue “I” I hold that the disputed land does not form part of the land compulsorily acquired by the Government of Ghana under E.I 18.

Based on this finding the onus of proving the contrary shall not shift to the Defendants, more so as they did not mount any counterclaim against the Plaintiff. I therefore dismiss the Plaintiffs reliefs without much ado. I award cost of GHC 20,000.00 against the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendants.