AGYARE VRS SANDERS ( SUBT. BY LEGRANDE PAUL SANDERS) (J4/75/2023) [2024] GHASC 42 (22 May 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT ACCRA – A.D. 2024 CORAM: PWAMANG JSC AMADU JSC KULENDI JSC GAEWU JSC ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/75/2023 22ND MAY, 2024 GILBERT MARSHALL OFOSU AGYARE ……….. PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT VRS JULIANA SANDERS …..…….. DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELANT (SUBST. BY LEGRANDE PAUL SANDERS) JUDGMENT KULENDI JSC: INTRODUCTION 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 4th November, 2021, which affirmed a judgment of the High Court granting the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent’s (hereinafter called “the Plaintiff”) claim of title Page 1 of 18 to land, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction and damages against the Defendant/Appellant/Appellant (hereinafter called “the Defendant”). BACKGROUND 2. The Plaintiff caused a Writ of Summons to be issued from the registry of the High Court, Koforidua on the 16th of April, 2012 against the Defendant seeking the following reliefs: a. A declaration that all that piece or parcel of land situate and being at Asukesease- Obosomase-Akuapem and bounded as NE by Professor Eugene Asamoah Amoah measuring 200ft, SE by proposed road measuring 213ft, SW by proposed road measuring 197.8ft and NE by proposed road measuring 207.4ft, is the property of the Plaintiff. b. A declaration that all that piece or parcel of land situate and being at Asukesease- Obosomase-Akuapem and bounded as NE by Dean Leighten Armah measuring 99.3ft, SE by Madam Asiado Yobo, measuring 203.9ft, SE by proposed road measuring 99.3ft, NE by proposed road measuring 203.1ft is the property of the Plaintiff. c. Recovery of possession d. Damages for trespass e. Damages for fraud f. GHC 140.00, being cost of the 14 boundary pillars the Defendant destroyed on Plaintiff's land g. Perpetual injunction, restraining the Defendant, assigns, successors, agents and workmen from dealing with Plaintiff's land. 3. The antecedent contentions upon which the Plaintiff grounded the above reliefs were that Plaintiff acquired two parcels of land from the Akua Donkor family of Obosomase – Akuapem. Though the two parcels of land abut each other, they have different documentation as originally, Plaintiff’s brother was to acquire one of the parcels of land Page 2 of 18 for himself which he declined. Upon acquisition, Plaintiff registered the two parcels of land. The first parcel of land was stamped as LVB/ER/587/2005 with registration number RA 195/05 whereas the second parcel of land was stamped as LVB/588/2005 and bears registration number RA 194/05. Plaintiff contended that in August 2011, Defendant entered unto the land, removed and destroyed 14 of the Plaintiff’s boundary pillars which were used to secure the land. 4. Attempts to meet the Defendant to resolve the impasse was unsuccessful but the Defendant subsequently started the felling of trees on the land in dispute. It was alleged that the Plaintiff’s vendor, the Akua Donkor Family, met with the Defendant’s grantor, the Asona Family of Obosomase, during which meeting the Defendant’s grantor admitted encroaching on parts of the Akua Donkor family lands. Defendant’s grantor apologized and paid mpata, that is customary drinks by way of admission of wrongdoing. 5. Despite the above, the Defendant persisted in her acts of trespass. In the pleadings, the Plaintiff contended that the Defendant’s claim to the land is fraudulent, which fraud was particularized as follows, that: “ i. Defendant laid claim to land she never acquired. ii. Defendant unduly extended her lands to areas that belonged to the Plaintiff. iii. Defendant who was not in Ghana made all effort to covet all of Plaintiff’s land. iv. Defendant seeks to covert land the deed of which is registered at the Lands Commission in Koforidua. ” 6. The Defendant caused an appearance to be entered on her behalf on 24th April, 2012 and subsequently filed a Defence to the Plaintiff’s action. By an Amended Statement of Defence file with leave granted on 26th November, 2015, the Defendant denied Plaintiffs’ claim and contended that she purchased the land in dispute and exercised acts of possession over same without let or hindrance. She contended further that she has Page 3 of 18 succeeded in repelling all trespassers by showing her title deeds to them. She said she has told the Plaintiff where she bought her land from and the fact that her grantor’s ownership of the land has been confirmed by a judgment of the Court. She denied trespassing onto the Plaintiff’s land and claimed that she only went on the land which had been declared by the Court to be hers. She contended that she purchased 16.06 acres of land from the Asona Family of Obosumasi. She further asserted that in 2004, Plaintiff’s vendor acting by one Kweku Kwakye sold part of her land to one Auntie Esie but same was reported to the Obosumasehene who recovered the land for her. Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s acts of trespass continued until the Obosumasehene called both families to resolve the boundary dispute, which resolution was in favour of her grantors. 7. The Defendant also contended that upon acquisition of the land, she mounted pillars on the boundaries and a site plan was prepared for her. She alleged that her land is covered by a deed dated 20th January, 2001 and registered as RA/489/03. She further averred that she commissioned a Global Positioning System (GPS) survey with the same boundary and site plan and this revealed that her land is 13.08 acres instead of 16.06 acres. It was further contended that the land in dispute was the subject matter of suit number CI/24/05 entitled Juliana Sanders vs. Kwaku Kwakye and a judgment dated 30th March, 2011 was rendered in favour of the Defendant against Plaintiffs’ grantor as well as other encroachers. In the said judgment the Circuit Court restrained the Plaintiff’s grantor as well as his servants, agents, privies and assigns from interfering with the Defendant’s possession of the land. The said judgment is the subject matter of a pending appeal dated 29th April, 2011. 8. On the basis of the foregoing, the Defendant counterclaimed as follows: a. Declaration of title to land situate at Obosomase in the Akuapim Traditional Area in the Eastern Region of the Republic of Ghana and covering of an area of approximately 16.06 acres and bounded on the North-East by J. O.Afari and Madam Akua's properties and measuring 937 feet more or less, and on the South-East by Afua Oforiwa's property and measuring 1162 feet more or less and on the South-West by Ama Asieduwa's property and measuring 715 feet Page 4 of 18 more or less and on the North-West by Ahwerease Stool land and measuring 650 feet more or less. b. Recovery of Possession. c. Perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff whether by himself or his servants, agents, privies, assigns or otherwise howsoever from entering or dealing with the said land. d. Damages for trespass. e. An order for the payment of the defendant's legal expenses by the plaintiff. f. Costs g. Any further or other reliefs which the Court may deem fit. 9. Trial commenced on 27th June, 2016 with the Plaintiff presenting his evidence-in-chief. At the end of the trial, the High Court entered judgment on 11th October, 2019 in favour of the Plaintiff and held in part as follows; “As I have analysed above, it is my view that both parties herein have occupied and were in possession of their own lands which are different from each other's land and that is why each of them enjoyed quiet possession of their land and never really met each other. It is my view that the Defendant mistakenly entered the Plaintiff's land, which is the land in dispute, believing that it was the land she was granted in 2001 and obtained judgment on. It is again my view that between the Plaintiff and the Defendant herein, the issue over the land in dispute began in 2011 after the Circuit Court judgment. I therefore find and hold that from the evidence before me, it is the Plaintiff who has been in effective possession of the land in dispute, whilst the Defendant has Page 5 of 18 also been in effective possession of the land granted her in 2001 located in Asaase, Bosomase and not the land in dispute … Accordingly, judgment is entered in favour of the Plaintiff for reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 as endorsed (sic) on his Writ of summons. The counterclaim of the Defendant is hereby dismissed as she has already obtained judgment from the Circuit Court, Akropong in 2011 on her 16.06 acres of land granted her in 2001 and located at Asaase, Obosomase, as per her deed of conveyance, exhibit 2 and the land in dispute is not that land.” 10. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal to contest the said judgment before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 4th November 2021 dismissed the appeal and wholly affirmed the judgment of the High Court, reasoning in part as follows: “It is worth remarking that Exhibit CE4 effectively resolved the dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant but Defendant unfortunately failed to take the full benefit of it. I feel impelled to therefore throw this to counsel that litigants and lawyers must take expert surveyor's composite plans seriously, especially where there are no compelling reasons to impugn the integrity of such composite plans. That is to say, where such composite plans, by and large, are authentic and the depictions are clear but not favourable to one party, that party should be honest to throw in the towel, rather than embarking on costly and needless litigation.”. 11. The present appeal before this Court which was filed on 25th November 2021, is therefore a protest against the concurrent judgment of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the High Court in favour of the Plaintiff. GROUND OF APPEAL 12. The following grounds were canvassed by the Defendant in her Notice of Appeal: i) The judgement is against the weight of evidence; Page 6 of 18 ii) The Court below erred in concurring with the High Court that the land acquired by the Defendant was in a different location from the land in dispute; iii) The Court below erred in concurring with the High Court that the subject-matter of the case: Juliana Sanders Vrs Kwaku Kwakye, Suit No.C1/24/05 is distinct and different from the land Plaintiff acquired from his grantor; and iv) The Court below erred in concurring with the High Court that the land depicted in the Defendant's Exhibit 2 is not the same as the land depicted in her site plan made in 2010 which is Exhibit 8. 13. We shall discuss all the grounds under the omnibus ground of appeal. This is because, the Defendant’s other grounds of appeal involve an evaluation of the evidence on record, which is the basic duty of this court where the omnibus ground of appeal is canvassed. Besides, the Defendant herself has in her Statement of Case filed on 14th December 2022, craved our indulgence to deal with all the grounds of appeal together under one composite argument. RESOLUTION 14. It is evident from the record of proceedings before us as well as from the respective Statements of Case of both parties that the central issue in this appeal is whether or not the holding by the two lower courts that the respective lands of the parties are separate and distinct is supported by the evidence on record. The Defendant sums up the above at page two (2) of her Statement of Case as follows; “My Lords, the Courts below held that the land in dispute belonged to the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the land acquired by the Defendant in January, 2001 which was the subject-matter of the suit at the Circuit Court, Akropong Akwapim, Juliana Sanders V. Kwaku Kwakye, Suit No. C1/24/05, (Pages 25-39 of Record of Appeal, Volume Two) was not the same as the subject-matter of this suit and that Page 7 of 18 it was located far away from it. I shall proceed to demonstrate that the land in dispute in this suit is the same as the land the Defendant identified, located and acquired in January 2001, as well as the subject-matter of the suit heard at the Circuit Court, Akropong Akwapim, Suit No.C1/24/2005 (Pages 25-39 of ROA; Volume Two) and that the evidence on the record which supports this view assails the evidence based upon which the Courts below reached their decisions.” 15. The Defendant took issue with the reliance on her site plan in coming to the determination that the respective lands of the parties were distinct from each other. The Defendant thus argued at page 6 of her Statement of Case as follows; “My Lords, site plans do not create locations of lands, it is locations from which site plans are created. A site plan may not reflect the land a party identified, bought and possessed out of professional incompetence or the use of poor instrument. From the peculiar facts of this case, the Defendant could not be said to have purchased any land apart from the land in dispute in this case, a land she possessed from January, 2001 until the judgment in this suit on 11th October, 2019, at the High Court, Koforidua. The Courts below made a meal of the fact that the two site plans presented by the Defendant showed acreages of 16.06 acres and 13.08 acres and therefore they cannot refer to the same piece of land.” 16. From the above, it is without a doubt that the central issue for our reconsideration is the issue of identity of the land in dispute. In this regard, it is worth re-echoing that the findings of the two lower courts are concurring. That is to say, both the High Court and Court of Appeal are agreeable and have made concurrent findings as to the identity of the land claimed by the respective parties. 17. We must reiterate that in all cases of concurrent findings by a trial and first appellate Court, this Court would not disturb same unless it is demonstrated before us that the concurrent findings are nevertheless clearly unsupported by the record and are based on Page 8 of 18 blunders, misapprehensions or errors in both lower Courts’ appreciation of the evidence, which have resulted in conclusions that have occasioned a miscarriage of justice. 18. In the case of Achoro & Anor. v. Akanfela & Anor. [1996-1997] SCGLR 209, Acquah (JSC) put the above in the following terms: “This court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the two lower courts unless it was established with absolute clearness that some blunder or error resulting in a miscarriage of justice was apparent in the way in which the lower courts had dealt with the facts.” See also the case of Crentsil v. Crentsil [1962] 2 GLR. 19. The instances where this court may justifiably interfere with concurrent findings of the Court of Appeal and the High Court were restated in the case of Koglex Ltd v. Field (no 2) [2000] SCGLR 175, to include the following: - a. Where the findings of the trial court are clearly unsupported by evidence on record or the reasons in support of the findings are unsatisfactory. b. Where there has been improper application of a principle of evidence or where the trial court has failed to draw an irresistible conclusion from the evidence. c. Where the findings are based on wrong propositions of law and, if that proposition is corrected, the finding disappears and d. Where the finding is inconsistent with crucial documentary evidence on record. 20. Again, this Court speaking through Aryeetey JSC in the case of Agyenim-Boateng Vrs. Ofori &Yeboah (2010) SCGLR 861 at page 867 held that: “…The appellate Court can only interfere with the findings of the trial Court where the trial court : (a) has taken into account matters which were irrelevant in law; (b) has Page 9 of 18 excluded matters which were critically necessary for consideration; (c) has come to a conclusion which no court properly instructing itself would have reached ; and (d) the court’s findings were not proper inferences drawn from the facts…However, just as the trial court is competent to make inferences from its specific findings of fact and arrive at its conclusion, the appellate court is also entitled to draw inferences from findings of fact by the trial court and to come to its own conclusions”. 21. These authorities concur with many others wherein this Court has repeatedly opined that the nature of lapses on which an Appellant seeks to ground a bid to overturn concurrent findings of lower Courts must be apparent, clear and obvious errors or misapprehensions of the evidence and facts which would have had the effect of occasioning grave injustice or miscarriage of justice to an Appellant. In such a situation, the justice of the case would invoke appellate interference to avert an unjust result. 22. We wish to emphasize that in actions for declaration of title to land, the identity of the land is an important fact to prove. In the instant case, both parties to the dispute put the identity of the land in issue. Also, both parties claimed for similar reliefs for declaration of title to land, recovery of possession, damages for trespass, among others. 23. It is trite that generally, the transfer of an interest in land must be in writing in order to conform to the requirements of the law. Specifically, sections 1, and 3 of the Conveyancing Act, 1973 (NRCD 175), which was the applicable law at the material time states as follows: 1. (1) A transfer of an interest in land shall be by a writing signed by the person making the transfer or by his agent duly authorised in writing, unless relieved against the need for such a writing by the provisions of section 3. A transfer of an interest in land made in a manner other than as provided in this Part shall confer no interest on the transferee. Page 10 of 18 Section 3—Transactions Permitted Without Writing. (1) Sections 1 and 2 shall not apply to any transfer or contract for the transfer of an interest in land which takes effect— (a) by operation of law; (b) by operation of the rules of equity relating to the creation or operation of resulting, implied or constructive trusts; (c) by order of the court; (d) by will or upon intestacy; (e) by prescription; (f) by a lease taking effect in possession for a term not exceeding three years, whether or not the lessee is given power to extend the term; (g) by a licence or profit other than a concession required to be in writing by section 3 of the Concessions Ordinance (Cap. 136); (h) by oral grant under customary law. 24. In the present action, the Defendant does not allege that the conveyance to him was a customary law grant or one excused from the requirement of writing by section 3 of Act 175. The transactions of the parties evidencing the transfer of land are in writing. Both parties tendered various documentary evidence in proof of their respective claim of ownership to the land in dispute. At this stage, it is important to emphasize that the failure of a party to establish the identity of the land he/she lays claims to must result in the failure of his or her action. 25. This principle of law was re-echoed by our learned and respected brother Dotse JSC in the case of Jass Co. Ltd & Anor v. Appau & Anor [2009] SCGLR 265 at 272 - 273 Page 11 of 18 "We have observed that in their quest to prove their title, the first plaintiff based its proof of title principally on exhibits A and B. Since this is a land transaction, exhibit B is of paramount importance because it is the site plan of the disputed land, whilst exhibit A, with all its legal imperfections, is the land purchase receipt. What must be noted is that, exhibit A does not contain the description of the land that has been sold to the first plaintiff, reference page 73 of the appeal record. The only exhibit that sought to create any certainty and linkage about the identity of the disputed land bought by the first plaintiff from the second plaintiff is exhibit B, the site plan tendered by first plaintiff as the document given it by the second plaintiff upon the purchase. However, this is the site plan, exhibit B, which was given to the second plaintiff to examine and after examination, he declared conclusively that it is not the document that he had given to the first plaintiff. By that singular statement, the second plaintiff has dealt a devastating blow to the case of the first plaintiff which was already weak. The result was that the case collapsed and cannot by any stretch of human ingenuity be redeemable. This being the case, the conclusion reached by the learned trial judge and the majority of the Court of Appeal in dismissing the plaintiff's claims, is in complete accord not only with the facts of the case as per the record of appeal, but also in law. This is because our courts have (page 273) consistently refused to declare title in any claim for land, when the land cannot or has not been clearly identified. see cases such as Bedu v Agbi [1972] 2 GLR 238 and Anane v Donkor; Kwarteng v Donkor ( Consolidated) [1965) GLR 188, SC where Ollennu JSC put the matter succinctly as follows: "where a court grants declaration of title to land or makes an order for injunction in respect of land, the land subject-matter of that declaration should be clearly identified so that an order for possession can be executed without difficulty. The first plaintiff, in our considered opinion, failed to lead that kind of evidence to satisfy the trial court that on its own strength and not on the weakness in the Page 12 of 18 opponent's case it had been able to make out a case sufficient to convince the court on the balance of probabilities." 26. In proving title to land, this Court’s position that where documentary evidence is at variance with oral testimony, the documentary evidence ought to be preferred unless the justice of the case otherwise demands, still holds sway. 27. Thus, where the site plans of parties as well as indentures issued to respective owners of land shows that the land claimed per the descriptions on the site plan and the indenture is different from the land as identified on grounds by the said party, this Court ought to prefer the documentary evidence over the oral testimony pertaining to the identity of the land. In this particular case, it is to be cautioned that land does not depreciate or shrink in size over time. Therefore, unless it is demonstrated that there was an error in the survey, it is untenable how the land of the Defendant could depreciate or shrink in size from 16.06 acres originally granted the Defendant as per her site plan and indenture issued in 2001 to 13.08 acres. 28. Although the Defendant alleged that the size of the original land she acquired was 16.06 acres, which said size had reduced to 13.08 acres, she did not lead any evidence to prove that the said differences in size was as a result of the methods used in the two surveys. 29. Curiously, the Defendant tendered in evidence Exhibit E a search report dated 20th October 2010 from Lands Commission using her original site plan of 16.06 acres which showed that the land covering the 16.06 acres is still registered in the name of the Defendant. The Defendant also tendered Exhibit J series which was another search report dated 26th April, 2012 from the Lands Commission using the 13.08 acre site plan and it showed that portions of the land to which the said site plan refers were registered in the name of the Plaintiff to this Appeal. Page 13 of 18 30. In fact, the relevant portion of the search report showed that a portion of the land covered by the 13.08 acre site plan was affected by a deed of conveyance dated 14th September, 2004 and registered as Doc. No. RE/194/2005. 31. The said Exhibit J which was attached to the Defendant's Witness statement and the reference of the registered deed number conforms with the averment in paragraph 5 of the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim wherein he stated as follows; “Plaintiff says the first plot acquired on the 14th September, 2004 was registered in 2005 as RE 195/05 and stamped as LVB/ER587/2005. The second plot also acquired on 14/9/2005 as RE/194/05 and stamped as LVB/588/2005.” 32. Corroboratively, the relevant portions of Exhibit J, states as follows; “Portion numbered I on the plan affects a Deed of Conveyance dated 14th September 2004 and made between Kwaka Kwakye as vendor and Gilbert Marshall Ofosu-Agyare as purchaser. Doc. No. RE: 195/2005… Portion numbered 3 on the plan affects a Deed of Conveyance dated 14 September 2004 and made between Kwaku Kwakye as vendor and Gilbert Marshall Ofosu Agyare as purchase: Doc. No. RE: 194/2005 refers”. 33. The inference to be drawn from the above is that the Defendant's land as per the original grant made to her containing 16.06 acres is separate and distinct from the land to which her 13.08 acre site plan refers. Indeed on the face of Exhibit J series, there are some registrations made within the 13.03 acre site plan which said registrations date back as far as 2002 for other persons, none of whom reflected in the search that was conducted with Defendant’s 16.06 acre site plan in 2010. It is curious to imagine that a search conducted in October 2010 with a 16.06 acre site plan did not reveal any of the other people who, based on the Defendant’s own exhibit J series, had registered their interests in various portions of the land between 2002 to 2005. Page 14 of 18 34. The above is a clear case of an instance where the evidence of an adversary corroborates that of a party. This Court has held in a plethora of cases that such evidence is of much probative value in establishing the case of that other party. 35. The above, coupled with the fact that the evidence of the Court appointed surveyor showed that the land claimed by the Defendant is distinct and separate from that of the Plaintiff’s land, deals a destructive blow to the case of the Defendant. This is especially the case when unlike the Plaintiff, the land that was shown on ground by the Defendant, which is the land in dispute, is distinct and separate from the land as documented on the site plan and indenture of the Defendant. 36. The composite plan prepared by the surveyor and tendered in Court without objection can be found at page 132 of the Record of Appeal. From the said composite plan, it is apparent that the land to which the Defendant’s grant relates and evidenced by an indenture executed in 2001 and registered as Deed No. EA 10651 is distinct and separate from the land in dispute. 37. Also, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the Defendant alleged that the land in dispute in this case was a subject matter of a suit between the Defendant and Plaintiff’s grantor entitled Juliana Sanders vs. Kwaku Kwakye. The said suit with No. C1/24/05 was issued between the Defendant herein and one Kwaku Kwakye for: “Declaration of title to land situate at Obosomase in the Akuapem Traditional Area in the Eastern Region of the Republic of Ghana and covering of the an area of approximately 16.06 acres and bounded on the North-East by J. O. Afari and Madam Aku's properties and measuring 937 feet more or less, and on the South - East by Afua Oforiwa's property and measuring 1162 feet more or less and on the South - W by Ama Asieduwa's property and measuring 715 feet more or less and on the North - West by Ahwerease Stool land and measuring 650 feet more or less, stamped and; registered at the Lands Commission, Koforidua”. Page 15 of 18 38. In the Juliana Sanders vs. Kwaku Kwakye suit supra, the Defendant herein premised her claims on the Deed of Conveyance dated 20th January, 2001 between Francis Adu- Amankwah and herself. Clearly, the said earlier suit which bordered on a 16.06 acre tract of land and evidenced by a conveyance dated 2001, per the composite plan tendered in evidence in the present suit, is distinct and separate from the land, the subject matter of this suit. 39. Nowhere in the pleadings in Suit No. C1/24/05 did the Appellant introduce any 13.08 acre site plan prepared over the same land. This Court has held severally and particularly in the case of Nana Otuo Antwi Bosiako vrs. Nana Adjei Panin; Civil Appeal No. J4/41/2021 delivered on 18th January, 2023 in the words of Torkornoo JSC (as she then was) as follows; “As determined ad nauseam from several cases, the doctrine of res judicatam applies when an earlier judgment involved the same parties on the same subject matter. Such a judgment shall be binding on the parties and their privies, assigns and successors in title. … When the doctrine of estoppel per res judicata is raised, the court is bound to examine the full record of the earlier proceedings alleged to bind the parties before it and satisfy itself that the subject matter, interests and capacities of the parties alleged to be bound by an earlier judgment are the same as in the contemporary dispute in which the defence is raised. If it is, then the parties and their privies in interest are bound by the earlier decision, Appeah and Another v Asamoah [2003- 2004] 1 SCGLR 226” 40. Upon scrutiny of the composite plan tendered by the surveyor, it is apparent that the land, the subject matter of the earlier suit (C1/24/05) is not the same as the land in dispute in this case. This is because, of the two lands pleaded as 16.06 acres and 13.08 acres, the Defendant’s16.06 acre land has been found as separate and distinct from the land in dispute. Page 16 of 18 41. Thus the judgment in the earlier suit, which involved a 16.06 acre land could not operate as estoppel against the Plaintiff in this suit. By this finding, the subject matter of the earlier suit is distinguishable from the subject matter of the present suit thereby disabling this Court from allowing this appeal on grounds of the operation of estoppel per res judicata. 42. It is in the light of these reasons that, on the 22nd of May, 2024, we unanimously dismissed the appeal by the Defendant against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 20th November 2021 in its entirety for want of any merit whatsoever and awarded cost of GH¢ 40,000.00 against the Defendant in favor of the Plaintiff. (SGD) E. YONNY KULENDI (JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT) (SGD) G. PWAMANG (JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT) (SGD) I.O. TANKO AMADU (JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT) (SGD) E. Y. GAEWU (JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT) (SGD) R. ADJEI-FRIMPONG (JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT) Page 17 of 18 COUNSEL EDWARD ANOKYE ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/ APPELLANT/APPELLANT WITH HIM, CYRIL ELORM BARNIE. K. AMOAKO ADJEI ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT WITH HIM, AMA AMOAKO ADJEI. Page 18 of 18