Eric Nii Aryee Mensah v Victor Austin

Introduction

[ 1]. By a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 14th January, 2019, Plaintiff claimed the following reliefs against the Defendant: -

i. Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Kwabenya in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana bounded on the North-West by proposed road measuring 50 & 45 feet more or less, on the North-East by proposed road measuring 150 feet more or less on the South-East by proposed road measuring 50 & 45 feet more or less and on the South-West by land of Nii Odai Ntow family measuring 210 feet more or less and containing an approximate area of 0.42 acre.

ii. Damages for trespass.

i. Recovery of possession of the said land.

iii. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, assigns, servants, workmen from disturbing the Plaintiff from quietly enjoying his land.

iv. Costs inclusive of legal and administrative cost.

An Overview of Parties Case As Pleaded

Plaintiff’s case

[2]. The Plaintiff, Eric Nii Aryee Mensah, claims ownership of a 0.42-acre parcel of land located at Kwabenya in the Greater Accra Region, Ghana. He asserts that he acquired the land through a Deed of Assignment dated 5th June 2004, executed between Gertrude Ampaw and himself. Upon acquiring the land, the Plaintiff took immediate possession by erecting corner pillars and depositing sand and stones on the property. The Plaintiff places reliance on a prior court case, Nuumo George Ankonu Adjin Tettey v. Margaret Tsikata & 7 Others (Suit No. BL 554/2007), in which he was the 5th Defendant. The judgment, delivered on 25th November 2011, declared that any grant of land by the Odai Ntow family must involve the consent of all principal elders of the family, including the Abbey We branch. Following this judgment, the Plaintiff regularized his title by obtaining a new lease agreement from the Odai Ntow family on 19th October 2012.

[3]. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, Victor Austin, has trespassed on his land and commenced development without his consent. Despite warnings, the Defendant has continued his activities, prompting the Plaintiff to seek legal redress. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant’s actions are unlawful and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought to protect his ownership and enjoyment of the land.

Defendant’s Case as Pleaded

[4]. The Defendant, Victor Austin, denies all the claims made by the Plaintiff, Eric Nii Aryee Mensah, in the statement of claim. The Defendant asserts that he purchased the land in question from Margrete Afi Tsikata in 2003, and a deed of assignment was prepared and registered. Due to financial constraints, the Defendant did not develop the land immediately but visited it periodically. In 2014, the Defendant was informed by a representative from the Kwabenya chief's palace that the chief had won a case against Afi Tsikata and that those who acquired land from her needed to ratify their ownership with the chief. The Defendant paid GHC 5,000 in installments for ratification and was issued an indenture and site plan signed by the relevant family representatives. Following this, the Defendant constructed a single room, completed the fence wall, and installed gates without any complaints from the Plaintiff.

[5]. In September 2018, the Defendant's caretaker reported that someone had deposited sand and started digging a foundation trench on the land. The Defendant's wife reported the matter to the police and the chief, who identified the trespasser as Nii Aryee Atomic, a member of their family. Despite interventions by the chief and the police, Nii Aryee Atomic continued to trespass, leading to further police involvement. The Defendant's wife made multiple reports, but the Plaintiff failed to attend police invitations or produce his site plan for a search. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff is not entitled to his claim and requests that the suit be dismissed. For avoidance of doubt no counterclaim was made by the Defendant.

Issues Adopted for Trial and Other Procedural Matters

[6] At the close of pleadings, the following issues were set down for determination by this Honourable Court on 20th November,2019.

i. Whether or not Plaintiff is the owner of the land in dispute.

ii. Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to his claim.

iii. Whether or not the Defendant Deed of Assignment from Margret Afi Tsikata of 2003 was ratified by the Odai Ntow family by way of indenture in his favour by an indenture dated 11th August,2014.

iv. Whether or not after acquiring the land defendant built a single room on it and placed a caretaker in occupation.

v. Whether or not defendant constructed a fence wall around the land and fixed a gate on it.

 

THE LAW ON BURDEN OF PROOF AND ITS ALLOCATION TO THE PARTIES

[7]. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities. This standard requires the tribunal or court to be convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence. This standard and its application are enshrined in the Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD 323, specifically in sections 10, 11, and 12, which define the elements of burden of proof, burden of persuasion, and burden of producing evidence. Section 10 establishes the "burden of persuasion," which is the obligation on a party to create the requisite degree of belief about a fact in the mind of the court. This burden may require a party to either raise a reasonable doubt about a fact or establish the fact by a preponderance of probabilities or beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 11 discusses the "burden of producing evidence," and imposes the responsibility on a party to introduce enough evidence to avoid a ruling against the party on an issue. Section 12(1) asserts that, in civil cases, the burden of persuasion generally requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities. Section 12(2) further clarifies that this preponderance is the degree of certainty needed in the mind of the court to conclude that a fact’s existence is more likely than not.

[8]. In an action for declaration of title to land, the Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case, not merely on the weakness of the Defendant’s See: Klah v Phoenix Insurance Co Ltd [2012] SCGLR 1139. Where both parties claim from the same stool or family, the Court must determine whose grant followed the lawful procedure or was first in time. See: Mondial Veneer (Gh) Ltd v Amuah Gyebu XV [2011] SCGLR 466.

In Ackah v Pergah Transport Ltd [2010] SCGLR 728 at 736, Adinyira JSC reiterated this principle, when she noted that, "It is a basic principle of the law of evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce credible evidence of the facts in issue. Without such credible evidence, the claim may fail."

 

This sentiment is echoed in Aryee v Shell Ghana Ltd & Fraga Oil Ltd [2017-2020] SCGLR 721, where the court reiterated essentially that matters capable of proof must indeed be proven with adequate evidence.

[9]. It is trite law that the Plaintiff carries the initial evidential burden of establishing facts crucial to the reliefs sought. S.A. Brobbey, in Essentials of Ghana Law of Evidence (p. 28), illuminates this point: "In the normal run of affairs, since the plaintiff is the one asking for something from the defendant, he should start the proceedings by giving testimony. That testimony will show what he wants from the defendant and why the court should order the defendant to give it to him."

[10]. Brobbey J.A., in Duah v Yorkwa [1993-94] 1 GLR 217, further distinguishes the burden of persuasion from the burden of producing evidence, noting that the former is the degree of evidence a litigant must adduce to satisfy a fact, while the latter pertains to which party must begin by leading evidence.

[1]. The burden on the Plaintiff to establish his case by a preponderance of probabilities means the Plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence to make their claim more probable than the Defendant’s version. This principle was restated by Ansah JSC in Takoradi Flour Mills v Samir Faris [2005-2006] SCGLR 882 at 900:

“This being a civil suit, the rules of evidence require that the Plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to make out his claim on a preponderance of probabilities, as defined in section 12(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). The party in whose favour the balance tilts is the party whose case is more probable among the rival versions.”

[ 12]. The rule is further clarified by Lord Hoffman in Re B [2008] UKHL 3, where he explained the binary nature of fact-finding in litigation. In his view, a tribunal must decide if a fact did or did not occur, leaving no room for ambiguity. The law sets a “0 or 1” value on a fact's existence, making it clear that if a party fails to satisfy their burden of proof, the fact is treated as if it did not happen. For the fear of diluting the wisdom of Lord Hoffman’s dictum in Re B, it is worth quoting his own words here:

 

If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (a fact in issue) a judge or jury must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are O and 1. The fact either happened or it did not. If the tribunal is left in doubt, the doubt is resolved by a rule that one party or the other carried the burden of proof. If the party who bears the burden of proof fails to discharge it, a value of O is returned and the fact is treated as having not happened. If he does discharge it, a value of 1 is returned and the fact is treated as having happened.”

Summary of Evidence Adduced by Plaintiff.

[13]. The Plaintiff testified that he is the lawful assignee of a portion of land located at Kwabenya, Accra. He claimed that the land was assigned to him by Gertrude Ampaw through a Deed of Assignment dated 5th June 2004 (Exhibit A). He further stated that the land in question was originally leased to Gertrude Ampaw by the Abbey Family, represented by Nii Okpoti Codjoe and Nii Abbey Okanfra II, for a term of 99 years, as evidenced by a Lease Agreement dated 10th May 1999 (referred to in Exhibit A). The Plaintiff traced his root of title to the Abbey Family, who he claimed were the rightful owners of the land. He presented a Search Report from the Lands Commission dated 28th October 2008 (Exhibit B), which confirmed that the land was not State land and that the Abbey Family had a valid lease over the property. He also relied on a Judgment dated 30th January 1980 (Exhibit G) in the case of Peter Mensah Anteh v. Simeon Aryeetey G.S. Okine and Emmanuel Odenkey Abbey, which affirmed the ownership of the Odai Ntow Family, of which the Abbey Family is a part.

[14] The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had trespassed on his land by developing it without his consent. He presented photographs (Exhibit L Series) showing structures erected by the Defendant on the disputed land. He claimed that the

 

Defendant's actions were in violation of his rights as the lawful assignee of the land and sought damages for trespass, recovery of possession, and an injunction to restrain the Defendant from further developing the land. The Plaintiff also presented a Lease Agreement dated 19th October 2012 (Exhibit F) between himself and the Odai Ntow Family, which he claimed further solidified his ownership of the land. The lease was signed by the heads of the four branches of the Odai Ntow Family, namely: Ben Mensah Armah (Anteh Kwakonam Family), Moses Tawiah Aryee (Tetteh Afrim Family), Joshua Odai Ama (Ashong Dzemawo Family), and George Ankonu Adjin- Tettey (Abbey We Family).

[15] .The Plaintiff referred to several judgments, including: Judgment in Suit No. BL 554/2007 (Exhibit D), where the court held that any grant of Odai Ntow Family land must be made by all principal members of the family; Judgment in Suit No. BL 513/2004 (Exhibit H), which affirmed the ownership of the Odai Ntow Family over lands in Kwabenya and Ashongman and Judgment in Suit No. L 512/2002 (Exhibit J), which also recognized the Odai Ntow Family as the rightful owners of the land.

[16]. Joshua Odai Ama, a witness for the Plaintiff, testified that he is the head of the Ashong Dzemawo Family, one of the four branches of the Odai Ntow Family. He confirmed that the Plaintiff's lease agreement with the Odai Ntow Family was valid and that the Plaintiff had the right to develop the land.He reiterated that the Odai Ntow Family, comprising the four branches (Anteh Kwakonam, Tetteh Afrim, Ashong Dzemawo, and Abbey We), are the rightful owners of the land in question. He referred to the Judgment of 30th January 1980 (Exhibit G) as evidence of the family's ownership. Joshua Odai Ama confirmed that the lease agreement with the Plaintiff (Exhibit F) was executed with the consent of all four branches of the Odai Ntow Family, as required by customary law. He stated that the family had reconciled their differences and agreed to regularize all land documents to avoid future disputes.

 

[ 17]. He corroborated the Plaintiff's testimony regarding the Defendant's trespass on the land. He stated that the Defendant had no right to develop the land without the consent of the Odai Ntow Family or the Plaintiff, who was the lawful assignee. Joshua Odai Ama referred to several legal notifications and judgments, including: Legal Notification dated 26th March 2012 (Exhibit E), which invited grantees of Odai Ntow Family lands to regularize their documents. Judgment in Suit No. FAL 251/2013 (Exhibit N), where the court recognized the Plaintiffs therein as the accredited signatories qualified to grant Odai Ntow Family lands.

Summary of Defendant’s Evidence

[ 18]. The Defendant did testify through DW1 (his wife, Ms. Victoria Nuworku) and DW2 (Mr. Ebenezer Anteh). According to DW1, the defendant, Victor Austin, purchased the land in Kwabenya from Margaret Afi Tsikata in 2003. The land measures 100 x 100 feet and was partially developed with a dwarf wall of about four courses of blocks at the time of purchase. A Deed of Assignment with a site plan was prepared by Afi Tsikata on 22nd January 2003, and the defendant registered the deed upon receipt. Due to financial difficulties, the defendant was unable to build on the land immediately but regularly visited the property to monitor it.

[ 19]. In 2014, the defendant and his wife, Victoria Nuworku, were informed by a representative from the Queen Mother of Kwabenya’s palace that the Queen Mother had won a land case against Afi Tsikata, and the land in question was part of the Queen Mother’s family land. The defendant was advised to attend a press conference and was subsequently instructed to pay GHC 5,000.00 for ratification.

The payment was made in installments of GHC 2,000.00, GHC 1,000.00, and GHC 2,000.00, and receipts were issued. After the final payment, the defendant was issued a new indenture and site plan, signed by the relevant family representatives.

[20]. Following the ratification, the defendant was advised by the family to develop the land. The defendant constructed a single room on the land and placed a caretaker, Koomson, on the property. The defendant also completed the fence wall and installed gates at the entrance. The construction was carried out without any complaints from the plaintiff or any other party. In September 2018, the caretaker informed the defendant’s wife that someone had deposited sand and started digging a foundation trench on the land. The defendant’s husband was out of the country at the time. The defendant’s wife reported the matter to Nii Okpoti, a principal member of the family, who identified the trespasser as Nii Aryee Atomic, a member of their family. The defendant’s wife reported the incident to the Taifa-Kwabenya Police Station and later to the Queen Mother, who assured her that the matter would be handled. The plaintiff returned to the land with his workers, but the family’s Asafo boys and a police patrol team drove them away.

[21]. The Queen Mother advised the defendant to continue building on the land. The defendant started digging a foundation trench, but the plaintiff, accompanied by land guards, chased away the defendant’s workers. The defendant reported the incident to the Accra Central Police Station, but the plaintiff refused to attend the police invitations. A search conducted at the Lands Commission revealed that the land was registered in the defendant’s name. The defendant provided photographs of the single room, the gated fence wall, and the foundation trench with remaining blocks. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff has no legitimate claim to the land and requests that the court dismiss the plaintiff’s claim.

[22] . Defendants relied on the following to bolster his case. Exhibit 1: Deed of Assignment and site plan dated 22nd January 2003; Exhibit 2: Receipts for ratification payments summing up to GHC 5,000.00; Exhibit 3: Indenture and site plan issued after ratification; Exhibit 4: Photograph of the single room constructed on the land; Exhibit 5: Photograph of the gated fence wall; Exhibit 6: Photograph of the foundation trench and remaining blocks and Exhibit 7: Search results from the Lands Commission confirming the defendant’s ownership.

 

EVIDENCE OF THE COURT SURVEYOR (MR. NATHANIEL QUARSHIE)

[23] Pursuant to an order of the Court, the Director of Surveys and Mapping Division, Lands Commission, assigned Mr. Nathaniel Quarshie—an Assistant Geometric Engineer with the Lands Commission’s Dispute Unit—to prepare a Composite Plan of the disputed land and submit a corresponding report. Mr. Quarshie testified multiple times (on 23 May 2022, 25 May 2022, 16 December 2022, and 17 February 2023, among other dates) to clarify the location and boundaries of the parcels claimed by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

[24]. On 23 May 2022 and 25 May 2022, Mr. Quarshie tendered an initial Composite Plan (marked at the time as Exhibits CE 1–CE 4). During cross-examination, however, it emerged that there was a mix-up regarding the Defendant’s survey instructions and site plans—particularly, the site plan that Mr. Quarshie plotted for the Defendant was not in the official court file of the Defendant’s instructions. Consequently, on 25 May 2022, Mr. Quarshie withdrew the plan and report to correct the confusion. The Court then rejected the initial exhibits (CE 1–CE 4) and directed the parties to refile their survey instructions. The Surveyor was to produce a corrected version.

[25]. A revised Composite Plan (dated 22 July 2022) was ultimately produced and delivered to the Registrar, with copies made available to the parties. Mr. Quarshie explained (during trial on 17 February 2023) that the final plan incorporated the proper site plans from both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and same ensured consistency with each party’s survey instructions as filed on the court record. In his final testimony ( during trial proceedings of 23 April 2024), Mr. Quarshie set out the main conclusions from the corrected Composite Plan and report, Mr. Quarshie noted that the Defendant submitted two different site plans. One measured 0.22 acre (“land edged yellow”), and the other measured around 0.24 acre. Upon superimposing these plans on the ground, he discovered that the 0.22-acre plan (edged yellow) did not coincide with the disputed area (hatched black). Instead, it lay about 110–150 feet away from the main parcel in contention. The second plan (0.24/0.42 acre) was more consistent with the land that the Defendant physically indicated on the ground.

[26]. According to the final Composite Plan, the foundation and single-room building (attributed to the Defendant) were situated within the disputed land (hatched black). However, these structures did not fall within the boundaries of the Defendant’s older 0.22-acre site plan. Hence, there was a clear mismatch between what was originally assigned (or at least originally plotted) and the land where the Defendant actually built.

[29]. The Surveyor observed that the Plaintiff’s site plan edged in green covered about 0.114 or 0.14 acre. He reported that “almost the entire disputed area” (hatched black) fell within the Plaintiff’s plan. In fact, Mr. Quarshie stated that approximately 80% of the land hatched black was covered by the Plaintiff’s plan (in earlier testimony on 25 May 2022, he mentioned “about 0.14 acres,” representing roughly 80% of the disputed plot). During cross-examination by Plaintiff’s Counsel ( on 23 April 2024), Mr. Quarshie confirmed that the foundation and single room attributed to the Defendant were “far away” (about 110–150 feet) from the 0.22-acre site plan. This is what transpired during his cross examination by Counsel for Plaintiff on 23rd April 2024.

Q: You will agree with me that the site plan that the Defendant submitted for the preparation of the Composite Plan does not conform with the

disputed land which is hatched black?

A: The Defendant submitted two site plans. One conformed and the other w was away.

Q: Can you tell the court which of the site plans conformed with the land in dispute?

A: My Lord it is stated in the instruction Exhibit B with acreage 0.24 acre.

Q: You will agree with me that the site plan with the acreage of 0.22 acre belonging to the Defendant does not fall within the disputed land?

A: Yes my Lord.

Q: In your Report you have described the said land with the colour yellow.

A: Yes my Lord.

Q: Kindly tell the court the date on the site plan in respect of the 0.22 acre land.

A: My Lord there is no date on the site plan.

Q: You agree with me that the land covered by the site plan in respect of the 0.22 acre is different from the land the Defendant showed to you on the ground?

A: Yes my Lord.

Q: Can you tell the court the distance in terms of feet of the land described by the

Defendant’s land edged yellow from the disputed land hatched black?

A: It is about 150 feet.

Q: From the composite Plan you have indicated that the Defendant had a foundation within the disputed land not so?

A: Yes my Lord.

Q: You will agree with me that the area where the foundation is situated is far away

from the land covered by the Defendant’s land edged yellow?

A: Yes my Lord.

Q: Can you tell the court in terms of feet the distance where the foundation is situate to where the land is covered by the Defendant’s site plan which is edged yellow on the Composite Plan?

A: My Lord it should be within the 150 feet.

Q: Defendant submitted a Site Plan with an acreage of 0.24 not so?

A: Yes my Lord.

Q: From your report can you tell the court the date on the site plan in respect of the

0.24 acre land?

A: My Lord there is no date.

Q: You will agree with me that the building you have indicated as belonging to the Defendant in the Composite Plan does not fall within the land covered by the site plan edged yellow?

A: Yes my Lord.

Q: You also agree with me that the foundation which you have indicated as belonging to the Defendant in the Composite Plan does not fall within the land edged yellow?

A: Yes my Lord.

Q: Can you tell the court in terms of acreage the extent of the disputed land covered by

the Plaintiff’s site plan edged green?

A: My Lord it is about 0.114 acres.

Q: You will agree with me that with the site plan the Plaintiff submitted for the preparation of the Composite Plan and edged green covers almost the entire land, the subject matter of this dispute which is hatched black?

A: Yes my Lord.

As can be discerned from the foregoing the Court Expert consistently referred to a “general shift” or mismatch between the Defendant’s older site plan and the area he actually occupied on the ground. By contrast, the Plaintiff’s plan matched closely with the site in dispute.

[27]. The Court Expert concluded that, while the Defendant did indeed submit documents purporting to show title to a certain portion of land, only one of those site plans (the 0.24 or 0.42-acre version) overlapped with the physically occupied land. However, even that plan allegedly lacked a date and had questionable origins. Significantly, the land physically occupied by the Defendant—including his foundation and single room—lies largely within the Plaintiff’s site plan as hatched black on the Composite Plan. Thus, as of his final testimony, Mr. Quarshie’s revised Composite Plan tends to support the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant’s building and foundation fall on the land claimed by the Plaintiff.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES

 

Plaintiff’s Submissions

[28] The pith of Counsel for the Plaintiff’s submission is that that the Plaintiff’s chain of title was first in time (10 May 1999, assigned to him on 5 June 2004), but any defect arising from the four-branch signature requirement was cured by a 2012 lease that included the late Nuumo George Ankonu Adjin Tettey (Head of Abbey We). Relying on cases such as Mondial Veneer (Gh) Ltd v. Amuah Gyebu XV (2011) SCGLR 466 and Tetteh v. Hayford (2012) 44 GMJ 11, counsel stressed that the Defendant’s title from Ms. Tsikata was void for want of valid concurrence from all four branches. Plaintiff’s Counsel further relied on the principle that “a person claiming title must prove the title of his grantor” (Benyak Co. Ltd v. Paytell Ltd [2013-14] 2 SCGLR), which the Defendant purportedly failed to do.

Defendant’s Submissions

[ 29] Counsel for the Defendant on the other hand maintained that the Plaintiff failed to meet the standard required of a party seeking declaration of title. Referring to Bisi

v. Tabiri alias Asare [1987-88] 1 GLR 360, counsel emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff to show a better title, not to rely on weaknesses in the Defendant’s case. Counsel contended that Defendant has successfuly pointed to various acts of “possession”—a fence wall, gates, single room, caretaker—and insisted these acts signified the Defendant’s continuous occupation of the disputed land. It was further argued that the “2014” indenture (Exhibit “3”) was a valid ratification by “senior elders of the Odai Ntow Family,” so the Defendant’s chain of ownership of root of title was sufficiently regularised.

FINDINGS OF FACT

[30]. I shall first deal with uncontroverted facts. From a thorough review of the pleadings and the testimonies, it emerged clearly that both the Plaintiff and the

 

Defendant admit the Odai Ntow Family is the allodial owner of extensive lands in and around Kwabenya, Ashongman, and adjacent localities. They each trace title to the Odai Ntow Family, albeit through different branches or representatives.

Furthermore, it is undisputed that the land in contention is situated at Kwabenya in the Greater Accra Region, and both sides acknowledge that the Defendant has erected a fence wall and constructed a single room on the disputed site.

[31]. Additionally, it is common ground that multiple judgments have affirmed the principle that any valid alienation of Odai Ntow Family land must be made with the consent and concurrence of the four recognized branches (Abbey We, Tetteh Afrimie, Ashong Dzemanwon, and Anteh Kwakonam). Equally uncontested is the fact that the Court appointed a Surveyor from the Lands Commission—Mr. Nathaniel Quarshie— to prepare a Composite Plan because the parties disagreed over whether the Defendant’s site plan overlapped the Plaintiff’s land. From the extensive cross examination of the Court Expert, the surveyor by counsel for the parties, no challenge has been directed at his competence or methodology he used in generating the composite plan. I did not also find any complaint of bias or lack of neutrality being made parties or their lawyers during cross examination against the court appointed surveyor. See: Great Commission Church International Vs. Acolatse & Anor (2014) 75 GMJ 39 AT PAGE 45.)

[32] Expert witnesses, such as surveyors, provide opinions and reports to assist the court in determining the identity, location, and boundaries of disputed land. However, the court is not bound by expert evidence but may use it as guidance to arrive at its own conclusion. Thus, in the case of Fenuku V. John Teye [2001-2002] SCGLR 985 Ampiah JSC speaking on behalf of the court held that: -

“The principle of law regarding expert evidence was that the judge need not accept any of the evidence offered. The Judge was only to be assisted by such expert evidence to arrive at a conclusion of his own after examining the whole of the evidence before him. The expert evidence

was only a guide to arrive at the conclusions.”

This Court agrees with Counsel for Defendant’s proposition of the law on the role of expert evidence in his Written Address. At page 6 Counsel for Defendant argued:

The law is that although the evidence of a court expert is only of persuasive effect and not binding, there must be very good reasons by the court to reject it. In the case of Tetteh V. Hayford (2012) 44 GMJ 11, Dotse JSC held at page 17 thus:

It is generally understood that a court is not bound by the evidence given by an expert such as the surveyor in this case. But the law is equally clear that a trial court must give good reasons why expert evidence is to be rejected”.

CONTROVERTED FACTS AND THE COURT’S FINDINGS

[33]. Notwithstanding the foregoing consensus, key disagreements arose regarding the authenticity and sequence of each party’s root of title. First, the Plaintiff insisted that although Ms. Gertrude Ampaw’s original 1999 lease may have lacked the signatures of all four sub-branches, he remedied any defect by obtaining a 2012 lease that bore the requisite endorsements from the recognized heads. The Defendant,

however, disputed the validity of Ms. Ampaw’s 1999 lease and maintained that the Plaintiff’s chain of title was null and void until 2012—and, in any event, could not override his (the Defendant’s) grant.

[ 34] Second, there was a sharp disagreement about the Defendant’s own acquisition from Ms. Margaret Afi Tsikata in 2003 and whether or not the Defendant properly “regularized” that grant in 2014. While the Defendant tendered a new indenture (dated 11 August 2014) and receipts for the GH₵5,000 paid, the Plaintiff rebutted that these signatories were not the duly recognized heads, particularly as they lacked the signature of the late Nuumo George Ankonu Adjin Tettey.

 

[ 35]. Third, the parties disputed exactly where on the ground the Defendant built his single room and fence wall. The Plaintiff claimed those structures lie squarely on the Plaintiff’s two plots at Kwabenya, whereas the Defendant insisted that he built strictly on the parcel Ms. Tsikata had assigned him. The Court Expert’s Composite Plan resolved much of this contention, as it showed that the Defendant submitted two site plans—one measuring 0.22 acre, the other 0.24 (or 0.42) acre—and that the older, smaller site plan was about 110–150 feet away from the area he physically occupied. The plan also revealed that the building and foundation the Defendant erected indeed fell within the boundaries of the Plaintiff’s site plan.

[ 36]. On the question of prior possession, the Plaintiff maintained he had already deposited sand and stone, erected corner pillars, and dug a footing before the Defendant’s entry in or around 2018, whereas the Defendant insisted he had fenced the land and put up a structure much earlier. The evidence, including the court expert or Surveyor observations, ultimately favored the Plaintiff’s account that the Defendant’s actual construction overlapped the Plaintiff’s surveyed area and came after the Plaintiff’s initial acts of possession.

[ 37]. Lastly, both sides advanced differing accounts as to who served as Head of the Abbey, we branch of the Odai Ntow Family and at what period. The Plaintiff testified—and tendered corroborating evidence—that the late Nuumo George Ankonu Adjin Tettey was recognized under prior court decisions to be Head of Abbey We up until his passing, whereas the Defendant—through DW2—claimed that a certain “Nii Okpoti” had authority at least between 2018 and 2019. The Court notes that these claims primarily impacted the credibility of the Defendant’s 2014 regularization, given it excluded Nuumo Adjin Tettey’s signature.

[ 38] Taken as a whole, therefore, the evidence established that while both parties traced their grants to the Odai Ntow Family, only the Plaintiff’s grant or documents covering same included the sanctioned endorsement of all four sub-branches after the decisive 2011 judgment. The Defendant’s purported ratification, though allegedly conducted with senior elders, lacked the recognized Head of Abbey We and so I find same to be deficient. DW1 under cross-examination on the 9th day of July, 2024 admitted that Nuumo George Ankonu Adjin Tettey pronounced as an accredited signatory to alienation of Odai Ntow family land did not sign Defendant’s purported regularized grant as required by law.

Q: You will agree with me that Nuumo George Ankonu Adjin Tettey was not one of the

signatories of your exhibit “3” for the Defendant.

A: That is correct, he is not a signatory.

[ 39]. An examination of Exhibit 3, presented by DW1 (Victoria Nuworku), reveals that the individuals who purportedly ratified the land document for the Defendant were not parties to the case that led to the judgment dated 25th November 2011. This judgment, tendered in evidence as Exhibit 9 by DW2 (Ebenezer Anteh), was a key ruling in favor of Nuumo George Ankonu Adjin Tettey and the Odai Ntow Family. Notably, Nuumo George Ankonu Adjin Tettey, who was central to the 2011 judgment, was not among the signatories who ratified the grant of the land to the Defendant. This raises questions about the validity of the Defendant’s ratification, as it appears to lack the involvement of a key figure whose authority was upheld by the court in the earlier judgment.

[ 40]. Indeed, during cross examination of Plaintiff by Counsel for Defendant on 30 May 2022 this is what transpired inter alia:

Q: “Now the Defendant Victor Austin also took their assignment to the Odai Ntow Family who asked them to pay GH₵5,000 … They were given new indenture by the Odai Ntow Family.”

 

A (Plaintiff): “The indenture possessed by the Defendant did not have the signature of Numoo George Akonu Adjin Tettey. … The one who signed on behalf of

Abbey We did not have the authority …”

Resolution of Issues Presented

[ 41]. As Counsel for Plaintiff correctly noted in his Written Address “a person claiming title to land has the duty to prove his root of title establishing that his grantor has a valid title to grant. Failure to establish one’s root of title will be fatal to the person’s claim before the court.” This proposition is rightly premised on the case of Benyak Company Limited Vrs Paytell Limited [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 976, wherein the Supreme Court speaking through Anim Yeboah JSC held at page 988 that: -

“There was always the requirement of law that the party claiming title must prove his root of title and that his grantor had a valid title to pass”

Similarly, in Mondial Veneer (Gh.) Ltd. V. Amuah Gyebu Xv (2011) SCGLR 466, Georgina Wood C.J. stated at page 475 that:

“In land litigation … the law requires the person asserting title and on whom the burden of persuasion falls to … prove the root of title, mode of acquisition and various acts of possession exercised over the subject matter of litigation. It is only where the party has succeeded in establishing these facts on a balance of probabilities that the party would be entitled to the claim”.

 

[ 42]. From the evidence before this court, the Plaintiff’s root of title is from Ms. Getrude Ampaw’s 1999 lease, assigned on 5 June 2004, followed by a 2012 regularization involving the recognized heads of the Odai Ntow Family. The Plaintiff cites judgments such as Suit No. BL 554/2007 (25 November 2011) and Suit No. FAL 251/13 (10 June 2016), which confirm that the “late Nuumo George Ankonu Adjin Tettey” was the accredited head of Abbey We. By contrast, Ms. Tsikata’s lease from Nii Aryee Annang appears to have been declared null and ineffectual, especially given the evidence on record that Nii Aryee Annang was restrained from alienating Odai Ntow lands as far back as 1991. On 30th May 2022 during cross examination of Plaintiff by learned counsel for Defendant a clear picture started emerging regarding the seemingly similar but rival versions of the parties root of title. For broader context the court will reproduce the exchanges here:

Q: Your case is that you became owner of the land by virtue of your Exhibit A which is a Lease of Assignment dated 5th June 2004 between Gertrude Ampaw and yourself?

A: That is so my Lady.

Q: So do you have the indenture of Gertrude Ampaw?

A: My Lady I cannot remember.

Q: I am putting it to you that this assignment you claim was given to you by Gertrude Ampaw is not true.

A: My Lady it is the truth.

Q: The indenture of Gertrude Ampaw which you have quoted in Exhibit A was not signed by the four branches of the Odai Ntow family.

A: It is true the four branches of the Odai Ntow family did not sign. This is because by then the four branches were not united. It was based on this our Head of Family Numoo George Akonu Adjin Tettey instituted legal action against Nii Aryee

 

Annan and we got Judgment in our favour in the year 2011. It was then that all the four branches came together.

Q: The indenture of Gertrude Ampaw whom you allegedly claim assigned her interest to you as indicated in your assignment as Exhibit A was signed by Nii Okpoti Kudjoe, Head of Abbey Family and Nii Abbey Okanfra II, Chief of Kwabenya is that not the case?

A: That is so my Lady.

Q: So in paragraph 7 of your Witness Statement your case was that any indenture coming from the Odai Ntow Family which has not been signed by all the four branches of the family is null and void. Then it stands that the indenture of Gertrude Ampaw from which you claim your ownership of the land is null and void.

A: My Lady the indenture can be relied upon. This is because we took the matter to court and we got Judgment in our favour. After the 2011 Judgment I have obtained documentation of which all the four families have signed.

Q: The Defendant was also assigned the interest of one Afi Tsikata in 2003 when the said Afi Tsikata acquired his land earlier from the Nii Odai Ntow Family. Then it stands to reason that the Defendant who also got an indenture from the four branches of the Odai Ntow Family in 2014 after the Judgment has a better title than you.

A: My Lady that is not so. This is because Margaret Afi Tsikata was one of the people we sued in that matter. I conducted a search and got all the names. The indenture being possessed by the Defendant did not have the signature of Numoo George Akonu Adjin Tettey who had Judgment in his favour against Nii Aryee Annan.

Q: I am putting it to you that in 2006 when the Odai Ntow Family allegedly granted the lease to your Assignor, Gertrude Ampaw through Exhibit A it has already divested its interest by granting the same land to Afi Tsikata earlier in 2001 so Gertrude Ampaw got nothing.

 

A: My land of two plots is not part of Afi Tsikata’s land. Secondly the land been claimed by the Defendant is farther from my land. A search carried out by the Defendant shows that the land he is claiming is nowhere near my land.

Q: Your further case being the case of Numoo George Akonu Adjin Tettey vrs Nii Aryee Annan in suit number BL/554/2007. The family per your Exhibit E invited occupants of the Nii Odai Ntow family lands to regularize their lands with the Family, is that not so?

A: That is so my Lady. We invited occupants that we did not grant land to, for those that we have already granted we did not invite them for regularization.

Q: Because of that letter in Exhibit E you took your assignment in Exhibit A allegedly given to you by Gertrude Ampaw for ratification. And you were given a fresh indenture which you have exhibited as Exhibit F dated 19th October 2012 is that so?

A: My Lady that is not so. I was part of those that went to Court. After the Judgment the four branches of the Family had to sign my indenture.

Q: Now the Defendant Victor Austin after the notice given by the Odai Ntow Family also took their assignment given to them by Afi Tsikata to the Odai Ntow Family who asked them to pay GH₡5,000.00 which they paid for their documents to the ratified for them and they were given new indenture by the Odai Ntow Family signed by all the four branches of the family just like you did.

A: The indenture possessed by the Defendant did not have the signature of Numoo George Akonu Adjin Tettey. The one who signed on behalf of the Abbey We branch did not have the authority to do that. This is because it was Numoo George Akonu Adjin Tettey who caused the publication to be made.

Q: I am putting it to you that all those who signed the indenture of the Defendant from the four branches of the Odai Ntow Family are the accredited Heads of family.

A: My Lady that is not true. This is because the one who signed on behalf of Abbey WE was a chief. Moreover, our land is a family land and not a stool land. By then our Head of Family was still alive.

 

BY COURT - What was his name?

PLAINTIFF - Numoo George Akuno Adjin Tettey.

Q: I am putting it to you at the time the indenture for the Defendant was signed by the four branches. The Head of Abbey WE family was Joseph Odenkey Abbey and not George Akuno Adjin Tettey as you would want the Court to believe.

A: My Lady that is not true. Joseph Odenkey Abbey was the Chief I referred to.

Q: I am also putting it to you that after the indenture was signed for the Defendant by the four branches of the Odai Ntow family he went ahead and registered it and this is confirmed by a Search Report, Defendant attached to his Witness Statement.

A: My Lady I am not aware that the Defendant has registered the land. I am aware that the land given by Afi Tsikata has been registered.

Q: I am also putting it to you that when the Defendant land was ratified for him and he paid 5,000 cedis for it. He was given receipt by the Odai Ntow Family which he has exhibited in Witness Statement.

A: My Lady I am not aware.

Q: When you started claiming the Defendant’s land as yours, the Odai Ntow Family

warned you to stay off the land because they had ratified it to the Defendant.

A: That is not true. It is a land of two plots. I gave out one plot for a house to be built on it. The other one had a footing and the Defendant went and destroyed that footing.

Q: The land of the Defendant has been fenced and two gates fixed on it, is that not the case?

A: My Lady that is not so.

Q: The Defendant also has a single room on the land with an occupant who has been in occupation of the single room since 2014.

A: The single room was built not quiet long. It was not in 2014.

Q: The Defendant has also constructed the foundation footing of a building on his land.

 

A: I had my footing there and the Defendant cleared my footing before he made his footing.

Q: You made an attempt to dig a foundation on the Defendant’s land and the late Nii Okpoti who was the then Head of the Abbey WE branch of the Nii Odai Ntow Family reported you at the Police Station and when the Police brought their patrol team with Nii Okpoti you fled with your boys.

A: My Lady that is not true. The land had my footing on it. If you visit the land today you will see my footing there. Because they used a machine to destroy the footing, that part of the land has subsided.

Q: At the time the Defendant bought the land from Margaret Afi Tsikata it has already been fenced with four layers blocks and they continue to complete it.

A: My Lady that land is not part of Margaret Afi Tsikata’s land. Lawyer Adjabeng Akrasi who was lawyer for the Defendants in that case (i.e. the 2011 case) wrote a letter in respect of that land. When you look at the site plan Afi Tsikata’s land, it is not part of my two plots of land. The Defendant’s land is farther away from my two plots of land.

Q: You attached Exhibit Q2 which is a letter from the GA Traditional Council as well as an Extract from the GA Traditional Council register for Head of Family to show you are the Head of the Abbey WE branch of the Odai Ntow Family is that so?

A: That is so my Lady.

Q: You also attached Exhibits Q3 and Q4 which are photographs of your installation as Head of the Abbey WE branch of the Odai Ntow Family is that the case?

A: That is so my Lady.

Q: You are aware that the Abbey WE Family protested to the GA Traditional Council and your recognition as the Head of the Abbey WE Family was withdrawn by a letter dated 9th September 2019. A copy of which we have attached to our Witness Statement.

 

A: Yes My Lady I am aware of that letter but those who protested against me have now come to my side. They have by a letter come to my side and recognize me as Head of Family for Abbey WE.

Q: So as we speak now you are not the Head of the Abbey WE in recognition of the GA Traditional Council?

A: My Lady I am the Head of Family of Abbey WE. I as Head of Family I have buried two family members that was last month.

Q: I am putting it to you that the land in dispute belongs to the Defendant and not you.

A: My Lady the land belongs to me.

[ 43] On preponderance of probabilities, the Plaintiff has shown a superior title, because any defect in Ms. Ampaw’s 1999 grant was corrected in 2012, and also the Plaintiff’s acts of possession date back to 2004). The Court Expert’s Composite Plan further confirms the land physically claimed by the Defendant aligns or coincides with what the Plaintiff had already demarcated. This Court therefore holds that the Plaintiff is the owner of the disputed land.

[ 44] In his Written Address Counsel for Defendant inter alia contends that Exhibit F, the indenture relied upon by the Plaintiff, is executed by four individuals who merely claim to be representatives of the four branches of the Odai Ntow Family. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff failed to produce any credible proof, such as an official Ga Traditional Council record, showing that those four signatories were truly accredited heads of the family. Moreover, Counsel argues that the Plaintiff’s reliance on a prior judgment (Exhibit N),) is unavailing because that judgment was never contested by the Defendant, who was not involved and thus had “no business” in the internal affairs of the Odai Ntow Family. In Counsel’s view, Exhibits F and N therefore lack probative value. The Court rejects this contention for the simple reason that valid court determinations and family ratifications concerning the Odai Ntow Family’s

 

rightful representatives cannot be ignored merely because the Defendant was not a party to those proceedings. Once a competent court has adjudged that certain persons are duly authorized to execute grants on behalf of the family, such ruling is generally binding on all who subsequently deal with that family’s land; the Defendant cannot circumvent the effect of that judgment by claiming to be strangers to or unaware of same. Furthermore, the record shows that the Plaintiff properly obtained and relied upon an indenture executed after a decisive 2011 judgment that clarified legitimate representatives of the family. Consequently, Exhibit F’s signatories recognized under those prior suits do indeed have legal authority to grant the land, and Exhibit N, although uncontested by the Defendant, remains a valid judgment and same confirms who may lawfully alienate Odai Ntow Family land.

Did 2nd Defendant Witness tilt the Scales?

[ 45] DW2 testified initially in absence of Counsel for Plaintiff so subsequently leave was granted for him to recalled for cross examination by Counsel for Plaintiff. In view of seeming enthusiasm both parties had in his evidence the court deems it prudent to subject DW2 and his testimony to a more surgical evaluation to ascertain whether he brings significant probative impact on the entire case. To start with, DW2’s testimony appears marred by vague recollections, selective reliance on certain letters, and a lack of first-hand involvement in crucial transactions. It is trite that a court assessing credibility will scrutinize contradictions, memory lapses, and apparent bias.

[ 46] DW2 confirmed that the Plaintiff belongs to the Abbey We branch of the Nii Odai Ntow Family, one of four recognized branches. DW2 himself is from a different branch (the Anteh branch), though he maintains they are all part of the larger Odai Ntow Family. DW2 insisted that one “Nii Okpoti” had been installed as Head of the Abbey We branch, relying on letters from the Ga Traditional Council (Exhibit 8 series). He then asserted that, following Nii Okpoti’s death, one “Nii Aryee” became the Head of Family. Plaintiff’s Counsel challenged whether the Ga Traditional Council had

 

authority to appoint or recognize a Head of Family, suggesting that such appointments are determined internally by principal elders.

Q: “You would also agree with me that the Ga Traditional Council does not appoint Heads of Family?”

A: “No, my Lord.”

Q: “And the person appointed as Head of Family does not need to be registered with the Ga Traditional Council for his appointment to be authentic?”

A: “They are registered. It is done by the Ga Traditional Council.

This exchange reveals DW2’s insistence on a process contrary to the usual practice that Heads of Family are appointed internally by principal elders. It casts doubt on whether DW2 fully understands (or is truthfully portraying) the procedure for appointing a Head of Family.

[ 47]. Again, DW2 dismisses the prior recognition of the Plaintiff as head of Abbey We branch of the Nii odai family yet insists on the correctness of a later letter. This selectivity suggests a possible bias or lack of candour. For example, when cross examined in November 2024 this is what transpired:

Q: “Are you aware that prior to the letter dated 9th September, 2019 (Exhibit 8 A) the Ga Traditional Council had written a similar letter recognizing the Plaintiff as the head of the Abbey We branch…?”

A: “My Lord it was wrongfully done. Nii Okpoti died and then Nii Aryee came in as the Head of Family...”

DW2 acknowledged that the Defendant’s alleged predecessor in title was Ms. Margaret Afi Tsikata, who supposedly acquired the land from Nii Aryee Annan (described as a Head of Family at some point). Crucially, DW2 admitted that he had not personally seen the indenture transferring title from Nii Aryee Annan to Ms.

Tsikata. Thus, under cross examination

 

Q: “Have you seen a copy of the indenture from Nii Aryee Annan to Margaret Afi Tsikata?”

A: “I haven’t seen it.”

[ 48] DW2 also admitted that Ms. Tsikata and Nii Aryee Annan had been sued by Nuumo George Ankonu Adjin Tettey in 2007 for granting portions of the family land without the Abbey We branch’s consent, resulting in a judgment against them in 2011.

Q: “I am suggesting to you that sometime in the year 2007, Nuumo George Ankonu Adjin Tettey took Nii Aryee Annan and Margaret Afi Tsikata and the others to Court because [they] granted portions…without the consent…of the Abbey We branch.”

A: “Yes, my Lord.”

Q: “And Judgment was delivered on 25th November, 2011 against Nii Aryee Annan and Margaret Tsikata?”

A: “Yes, my Lord.”

It is the view of the court that by conceding that the prior grantors (Nii Aryee Annan and Margaret Afi Tsikata) lost in court, DW2 effectively confirms a legal determination that the alleged transfer to Defendant was unauthorized or improper at that time

After the 2011 judgment, DW2 claimed the “four branches” of the Nii Odai Ntow Family “ratified” the Defendant’s grant in 2014. However, DW2 was not personally

among those who signed the purported ratification document. He also conceded that the signatories to that document were not parties to the 2007-2011 litigation. Under Cross examination DW2 responded as follows:

Q: “It was after this Judgment that you claimed the Odai Ntow Family ratified the grant of the land to the Defendant because he was in possession not so?”

A: “Yes… That was done in 2014.”

 

Q: “You would also agree with me that those who purportedly ratified the land to the Defendant were not part of the case which resulted in the Judgment dated 25th November, 2011.”

A: “They were not part but they were senior elders of the Odai Ntow Family.”

This sequence implies that the original grant was invalid, which necessitated a later “ratification” by a different group. However, none of the individuals subject to the court judgment apparently participated, thus leaving the validity of the Defendant’s alleged post-judgment “ratification” as being improbable or less probable or speculative.

[ 49] On the question of date of Possession and Structures on the Land, DW2 placed the Defendant’s first entry onto the land around 2013 and stated that the Defendant constructed a fence wall and a single room on the property. DW2 could not give specific dates for the commencement of construction. Thus, under cross examination:

Q: “Can you tell the Court the year in which the Defendant first went on the land?”

A: “My Lord I know they went there around 2013.”

Q: “You told this court that the Defendant has a single room on the land. Can you tell the court the date he started construction of the single room?”

A: “I can’t tell but I went there with the late Nii Okpoti and saw the building on the land.” Indeed, DW2 provides an approximate year but is unable to recall essential details, such as when the Defendant actually began building. His stated knowledge seems vague or second-hand. DW2 really had Limited Personal Knowledge of the disputed land and the alleged transactions regarding acquisition and transfer of interests. This is how he shot himself under cross examination

Q: “I am putting it to you that you do not know anything about the land, the subject matter of this dispute.”

A: “That is not true. I have been on the land and I know everything. I have seen the indenture signed by the senior elders of the Family…”

 

DW2 insists he knows “everything,” yet cannot provide dates or confirm having personal knowledge of the transactions that allegedly form the root of title of Defendant.

[ 50]. Furthermore, DW2 acknowledged never having met Mr. Austin (the Defendant) in person, only having communicated by phone. Thus, when questioned:

Q: “Have you met Mr. Austin personally?”

A: “No, my Lord. We have been talking on phone.”

Despite testifying on crucial issues about the Defendant’s ownership, DW2 admits never meeting Mr. Austin. This suggests strongly that DW2’s knowledge is incomplete or reliant on hearsay.

DW2’s admissions and uncertainties raises serious question about his direct knowledge of the land transactions. The chain of title or ownership from Aryee Annan through Ms. Tsikata to Defendant is unsubstantiated, especially in light of the court judgment against Aryee Annan and Ms. Tsikata in 2011, coupled with DW2’s admission that he never saw the original indenture for that transfer.

[ 51]. Unsurprisingly, learned counsel for Defendant in his Supplementary Written Address following the recall of DW2 quoted Darrell Royal, “You never lose a game if your opponent doesn’t score”. The Court part company with him on implied statement that Plaintiff has not succeeded in proving his case. On the contrary the court is satisfied when the entire pleadings documentary and oral evidence considered and rigoursly weighed on the balance or preponderance of probabilities that Plaintiff has discharged the evidential burden and burden of proof.

The Court relies on the well-established principle in Klah v Phoenix Insurance Co. Ltd [2012] SCGLR 1139, that “the Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case,” which the Plaintiff herein has done, having shown a valid chain of title and prior possession. The Defendant’s alleged regularization in 2014, lacking signatures

 

from all four sub-branches, particularly the recognized Head of Abbey We, cannot defeat the Plaintiff’s superior interest (See: Mondial Veneer (Gh) Ltd v Amuah Gyebu XV [2011] SCGLR 466).

[ 52]. Accordingly, court resolves the issues as follows:

Issue 1: Whether or not the Plaintiff is the owner of the land in dispute

Based on the evidence, this Court concludes that the Plaintiff has established a superior title. Any defect in the 1999 lease to Ms Ampaw (subsequently assigned to the Plaintiff in 2004) was effectively cured through the 2012 regularization endorsed by the recognized heads of the Odai Ntow Family. Furthermore, judgments in Suit No. BL 554/2007 (25 November 2011) and Suit No. FAL 251/13 (10 June 2016) show that Nii Aryee Annang lacked authority to alienate Odai Ntow Family lands—a fact that invalidates Ms Tsikata’s purported title. As the Plaintiff’s acts of possession date back to 2004 and were corroborated by the Court Expert’s Composite Plan, the Plaintiff has demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that he is the rightful owner of the disputed land.

Issue 2: Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim

Having shown good title, the Plaintiff is prima facie entitled to the remedies sought: a declaration of title, damages for trespass, recovery of possession, and a perpetual injunction. The Court accepts evidence that the Defendant entered the land and began construction after the Plaintiff had already established possession and trespassed upon land lawfully held by the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant’s

occupation was founded on a defective grant, the Plaintiff’s claims succeed in full.

Issue 3: Whether or not the Defendant’s 2003 Deed of Assignment from

Ms. Tsikata was ratified in 2014)

The Defendant relies on a 2014 “ratification” (Exhibit “3”) to legitimize his title from Ms Tsikata (who, in turn, obtained hers from Nii Aryee Annang). DW2, however, conceded that the recognized Head of Abbey We—Nuumo George Ankonu

 

Adjin Tettey—did not sign that purported ratification. Additionally, none of the signatories to the 2014 document were involved in the 2007–2011 litigation that invalidated the original conveyances by Nii Aryee Annan. This Court therefore finds the “ratification” ineffectual and insufficient to remedy the Defendant’s defective root of title.

Issue 4: Whether or not the Defendant built a single room and placed a caretaker in occupation

It is undisputed that the Defendant has erected a single room on the contested site and stationed a caretaker there. The precise year of construction—whether 2013 or slightly later—does not alter the fact that the land in question is part of the Plaintiff’s property, as confirmed by the Surveyor’s plan. The Defendant’s building, therefore, rests on land owned by the Plaintiff. It is also the view of the court that since the court has made a finding that Plaintiff’s grant was regularised in 2012 any acts of possession including the single room which postdated regularisation of Plaintiff’s grant cannot alter the court’s finding that Plaintiff has a better title.

Issue 5: Whether or not the Defendant constructed a fence wall around the land and fixed a gate on it

The Defendant tendered photographic evidence showing a fence wall and gate, which the Plaintiff acknowledged existed but identified as an encroachment. Since this Court has found the Plaintiff to be the rightful owner, the fence and gate constitute acts of trespass. The Court has taken judicial notice of Police report which Defendant exhibited to an application for appointment of court expert or surveyor.

FINAL ORDERS

The court enters judgment for Plaintiff and hereby makes Declaration of title in favour of Plaintiff to all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Kwabenya in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana bounded on the

 

North-West by proposed road measuring 50 & 45 feet more or less, on the North-East by proposed road measuring 150 feet more or less on the South-East by proposed road measuring 50 & 45 feet more or less and on the South-West by land of Nii Odai Ntow family measuring 210 feet more or less and containing an approximate area of 0.42 acre. I award GHC 10, 000 as general damages for trespass. The court decrees Recovery of possession of the said land in favour of Plaintiff. The court makes an order of Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, assigns, servants, workmen from disturbing the Plaintiff from quietly enjoying his land.

The parties through their lawyers have heeded a sympathy call from the bench for the Defendant who as a matter of fact appeared to have been a victim of the multilayered confusion and complexity that confront land transactions in Accra particularly and to be blunt the Nii Odai Ntow family lands and have agreed not to take cost. Cost is accordingly not ordered.