ISSIFU VRS MUNIN & 2 OTHERS (NR/BB/DC/A1/02/2023) [2024] GHADC 420 (22 February 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD ON WEDNESDAY THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 AT BIMBILLA BEFORE HIS WORSHIP PETER KOBBLAH AMETSOWU. SUIT NO. : NR/BB/DC/A1/02/2023 BAWA ISSIFU (head of family) PER HIS LAWFUL ATTORNEY ABDUL-MUHMIN MUSTAPHA } PLAINTIFF VRS. 1. MOHAMMED MUMIN@ MEENU 2. ADAM ABUKARI @ ADAM CHEKUSI } DEFENDANTS 3. ABDUL WAHAB @ YELLOW MAN INTRODUCTION JUDGMENT 1. The parties to this suit are lawful attorney of the Plaintiff who is one of the principal members of the family of Alhaji Abu Issifu whereas the Defendants are farmers and all reside in Bimbilla. The Plaintiff being the head of family of Alhaji Abu Issifu due to ill health appointed Abdul-Muhmin Mustapha as his attorney to prosecute this matter on his behalf and on behalf of the family. 2. On the 22nd day of October, 2022 the Plaintiff through his attorney issued out of the registry of this court a Writ of Summons against the Defendants and claimed for the following reliefs: (i). A declaration that all that piece or parcel of land/plot lying and situate at Bimbilla New Market and shares boundaries with Alasco Building to the right, Tailor Zei to the left, Abdulai Waali to the back and the frontage is the Eastern Corridor Highway, which plot is the bonafide property of the late Alhaji Abu Issifu and of cause the Plaintiffs who are the children and the customary successors of the late Alhaji Abu Issifu. (ii).An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents, representatives and workmen from any way interfere with Plaintiffs and the entire family of the late Alhaji Abu Issifu quiet enjoyment of the said parcel of land/plot lying and situate at Bimbilla New Market as described in claim (i). (iii).Cost of instituting this action. 3. These reliefs were subsequently amended when the court directed the Plaintiffs to amend the Writ and their capacity since the property in question has become family property. This was the reason why the head of family sued and appointed one of the earlier plaintiffs as his attorney to prosecute the instant case. In the amended Writ of Summons the Reliefs sought are as follows: 4. (i). A declaration that all that piece or parcel of land/plot lying and situate at Bimbilla New Market and shares boundaries with Alasco Building to the right, Tailor Zei to the left, Abdulai Waali to the back and the frontage is the Eastern Corridor Highway, which plot is the bonafide property of the late Alhaji Abu Issifu (ii). An order of ejectment of the Defendants on said plot of land and possession given to the plaintiff. (iii). An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents, representatives and workmen from any way interfere with Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the said parcel of land/plot lying and situate at Bimbilla, New Market as described in claim (i). (iv). General Damages including cost. (v). Recovery of possession. (NB): This last relief was separated from relief (ii) since the two reliefs cannot be combined. 5. To this amended Writ and accompanied reliefs, the Defendants tied issues with the Plaintiff when they pleaded not liable to all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff. The court then ordered the parties to file their Witness Statements and attach all documents in relation to the disputed land. This order was made for the fact that some of the parties did not agree for out of court settlement suggested by the court. PLAINTIFF’S CASE. 6. The Plaintiff in his Amended Writ of Summons and Summary of Subject Matter of Claim sought for a declaration that the disputed land as a family property, ejectment of the Defendants from the front of the land and some other reliefs. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the land in dispute became a family property when Alhaji Abu Issifu passed on. He went on to say that somewhere 2006 they put up six (6) stores on a portion of the disputed land which front view shares boundary with the Eastern Corridor Highway. That they have being in possession until the same year, 2006 when the 1st Defendant started trespassing and giving portions to some persons to use as their workshops. This matter ended up at the then Bimbilla Naa who advised the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant to restrain from utterances and argument due to the volatile security nature of the area at that time. Plaintiff further averred that the Defendants had their containers sitting on the undeveloped part of the road prior to the expansion of the Eastern Corridor Highway. That with the expansion of the road the Defendants were asked to remove their containers after they have been compensated. Instead of removing their containers from the road to a safe place they rather placed them in the frontage of the Plaintiff’s stores. To this the Plaintiff saw the action of the Defendants as unlawful. DEFENDANT’S CASE. 7. The Defendants, on the other hand, contended that where they occupy is a plot on its own and belongs to the father of the 2nd Defendant who acquired it from one Papa Kojo. 1st Defendant stated that he was the caretaker of the disputed land for Papa Kojo when he acquired it, and he remained the caretaker for Abukari when he acquired the land from Papa Kojo. 1st Defendant admitted that he granted portions of the land to the 3rd Defendant and one Afa Musah to operate their businesses since 1996 without any contest from anybody until recently when the Plaintiff took this action against them. On record, the Defendants did not file any Statement of Defence. The above narration is extracted from their respective Witness statements. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. 8. The court after carefully examination of the processes filed by both parties concluded on the following issues for determination: (i) Whether or not the disputed land is for Plaintiff’s family and shares boundary with the Eastern Corridor Highway. (ii) Whether or not the 2nd Defendant’s father had any land in front of the Plaintiff’s land and shares boundary with the Eastern Corridor Highway. (iii) Whether or not the Plaintiff’s attorney is clothed with capacity to prosecute this matter. STANDARD OF PROOF, EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS. 9. To resolve the issues identified above the court will analyse and evaluate both the fact and evidence put forward by both parties vis a vis the applicable laws. The issues are determined when the party with the burden to establish the existence or nonexistence of an allegation is able to produce credible evidence to that effect. This is provided under section 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) as follows: “Except as otherwise provided by law, unless and until it is shifted a party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or non-existence of which is essential to the claim or defence he is asserting.” 10. In the case of ABABIO VRS AKWASI III (1994-95) GBR 774 at 777, AIKINS JSC stated the principle thus: “The general principle of law is that it is the duty of a plaintiff to prove his case, ie he must prove what he alleges. In other words, it is the party who raises in his pleadings an issue essential to the success of his case who assumes the burden of proving it. The burden only shifts to the defence to lead sufficient evidence to tip the scales in his favour when on a particular issue the plaintiff leads some evidence to prove his claim. If the defendant succeeds in doing this he wins; if not he loses on that particular issue. See Bank of West Africa Ltd v Ackun [1963] 1 GLR 176”. 11. Similarly, in ACKAH V. PERGAH TRANSPORT LTD [2010] SCGLR 728 at page 736 Adinyira, JSC stated that: “It is a basic principle of the law of evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail…” 12. In effect, the task to produce sufficient evidence to prove or establish one’s case is the responsibility of the Plaintiff to adduce credible evidence to enable him or her win his or her case on the balance of the probabilities. 13. The burden of producing credible evidence by the parties as well as the burden of persuasion are determined on the preponderance of the probabilities. This is provided under section 12 (1) of NRCD 323 as follows: “Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities.” Subsection (2) of section 12 of NRCD 323 defines what preponderance of probabilities means as follows: "Preponderance of the probabilities means that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence.” 14. It is important to make mention of the fact that as the case progresses the Plaintiff on the 19/12/2023 filed an application for interlocutory injunction to preserve the disputed land. This application was granted in part on 20/12/2023 retraining the defendants from further leases on the disputed. 15. When the 2nd Defendant was cross examining Plaintiff’s attorney on 30/01/2023, the court ordered for Survey Report ie, Composite Plan to assist the court determine the matter before it with the following survey instructions: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Structure/Building of the plaintiff. The end of the previous road before the expansion. The present layout and its new expanded road. The Defendants’ plot and any other structures adjoining to the disputed land. 16. The said order also clearly stated that the Plaintiff pays for the cost of the Survey Report. Subsequently, the Survey Report was submitted to court and copies were given to the parties to study and cross examination of the officer who produced the report at a later date. The case progressed to a stage where Pw2 was under cross examination under differently constituted magistrate who was performing additional duty. 17. In resolving the dispute between the parties the court will first tackle issue (iii) which deals with capacity that is, whether or not the Plaintiff’s attorney is clothed with capacity to prosecute this matter. It is trite that a person who goes to court must indicate the capacity in which he or she is suing. Capacity is very important and one thing that goes to the root of every matter. A person who comes to court without properly clothed with capacity will have his case struck out for want of capacity under Order 16 of the District Court Rules,2009 (C.I. 59). Hence, the Plaintiff sued in his capacity as the head of family of Alhaji Abu Issifu’s family per his attorney Abdul- Muhmin Mustapha which capacity has not been challenged by the Defendants or any other person. 18. I must state that the Power of Attorney was placed on the docket but lacks some other statutory requirements set out in the Power of Attorney Act, 1998 (Act 549) and the Stamp Duty Act, 2005 (Act 689). But what does the Power of Attorney Act, 1998 (Act 549) require of a valid Power of Attorney? Section 1 of Act 549 provides as follows: “Section 1 entitled Execution of Powers of Attorney. (1) An instrument creating a power of attorney shall be signed by the donor of the power, or a person authorised by him in the presence of the donor. (2) Where the instrument is signed by the donor of the power one witness shall be present and shall attest the instrument. (3) Where the instrument is signed by a person authorised by the donor, two witnesses shall be present and shall attest the instrument.” 19. Section 1 of Act 549 (supra) requires the signatures of both the principal as donor and that of one witness who shall attest to the power of attorney. On the face of the Power of Attorney before this court it is the signatures of the donor, that of the Commissioner for Oaths and the donee that can be seen. The donee in the person of Abdul-Muhmin Mustapha is not required to sign any part of the document as required by law. Clearly, the conclusion would be that the power of attorney is defective because it does not meet the statutory requirements under section 1 of Act 549. See the case of ASANTE-APPIAH VRS. AMPONSAH [2009] SCGLR 90 at page 94. 20. But what has been the recent position on this statutory requirement under section 1 of Act 549, especially the requirement of one witness who shall be present and shall attest the instrument? The Supreme Court has since departed from Asante- Appiah’s case (Supra) and concluded that a Commissioner for Oaths is more a credible person as a witness to attest to power of attorney than one stated on a paper signed by the donor and attested by a witness without an oath. This conclusion was made in the case of FLORINI LUCA & 1OR V. MR. SAMIR & 2ORS, Civil Appeal No.J4/49/2020, dated 21st April 2021 where the apex court, per Pwamang JSC, held as follows: “That holding, in our clear thinking, is not right and just having regard to the purpose and plain meaning of the provisions of Act 549 as a whole. If our decision in Asante-Appiah v Amponsah has been interpreted as disqualifying a commissioner for oaths from acting as a witness to a power of attorney, or to mean that a power of attorney cannot be validly constituted by a statutory declaration sworn to before a commissioner for oaths, then we hereby depart from that decision pursuant to Article 129 (3) of the Constitution. In our view, a power of attorney constituted by a statutory declaration attested by a commissioner for oaths or Notary Public has more gravitas than one stated on a paper signed by the donor and attested by a witness without an oath so it cannot be right and just to hold such a power of attorney invalid.” 21. On the strength of the case of Florini Luca (supra) I am emboldened to hold that the power of attorney in this instant case meets the requirement under section 1(2) of Act 549 and same is valid. The validity of the said power therefore clothes the donee, Abdul-Muhmin Mustapha, with capacity to prosecute this matter on behalf of the Plaintiff. 22. However, the Power of Attorney was not stamped as required by section 32 of the Stamp Duty Act, 2005 (Act 689). Subsection 1 of Act 689 tasks the judge, arbitrator or referee to take notice of an omission or insufficiently stamped documents produced before them as evidence. Subsection 1 reads as follows: “Where an instrument chargeable with a duty is produced as evidence (a) in a court in a civil matter; or (b) before an arbitration or referee, the judge, arbitrator or referee, shall take notice of an omission or insufficiency of the stamp on the instrument. 23. As the magistrate I have dutifully taken notice of the fact that the power of attorney chargeable to duty has not been stamped. See the cases of LIZORI LTD VRS MRS EVELYN BOYE & SCHOOL OF DOMESTIC SCIENCE suit No J4/8/2012 dated 26/7/2013, and FRANCIS APPIAH-MENSAH V. GIFTY ANANE-WIREKU, suit No. J4/28/2023 dated 19th day of July 2023. 24. The admissibility of the power of attorney in this case is dependent upon payment of duty and subsequent stamping of same. For the fact that the power of attorney has not been stamped same cannot be admitted, and to accept Abdul- Muhmin Mustapha as Plaintiff’s lawful attorney to prosecute this matter on Plaintiff’s behalf. 25. But can the court adopt and accept the Witness Statement of Abdul- Muhmin Mustapha to be Plaintiff’s witness in this case? The position of the law, however, is that a Plaintiff can succeed based on the testimonies of his witnesses without himself testifying. This is supported by the case of IN RE ASHALLEY BOTWE LANDS; ADJETEY AGBOSU AND OTHERS V KOTEY AND OTHERS [2003- 2004]1 SCGLR 420-448, where the court held that “There was no rule of law stating that a party would succeed in his case only if he testifies at the trial.” 26. Also, in the case of ROBERT AMASSAH KOTEY V. ISAAC MANTEY & 3ORS, suit No. FAL/23/12, dated 26th day of November 2018, the High Court treated the witness statement of Plaintiff’s attorney as evidence of a witness for the Plaintiff but not evidence tendered in the capacity as an attorney for the Plaintiff. The learned high Court judge arrived at this position by relying on the case of ADJEI FIO V. MATE TESA [2013-14] 2 SCGLR 1537. 27. On the basis of the above authorities I have no option, as a lower court, than to follow these decisions, and treat the evidence of Abdul- Muhmin Mustapha, the supposed attorney of the Plaintiff as evidence of a witness for the Plaintiff. 28. The next issue to resolve are issues (i) and (ii). These are: (i) Whether or not the disputed land is for Plaintiff’s family and shares boundary with the Eastern Corridor Highway and (ii) Whether or not the 2nd Defendant’s father had any land in front of the Plaintiff’s land and shares boundary with the Eastern Corridor Highway. 29. These two issues will be resolved together since they are more or less related. The principle of law is that in land suits, the Plaintiff is required to prove his case by adducing credible evidence. In the case of DOWUONA II VRS OLEWOLON (2006-2007) 7 MLRG 1534, the Supreme Court succinctly stated as follows: “It is trite learning, plaintiff seeking title, the onus rests upon him to prove his case.” 30. Basically, there are two main essentials which the plaintiff is required to prove. These are his root of title and the identity of the land he claims. On root of title, see the case of HENRY DOE SAMLAFO VRS. GREDA AND ANOR (2010) 26 GMJ 94 CA. 31. Related to root of title, is the identification of the land in dispute, this was established in the case of BISSAH VRS. GYAMPO III (1964) GLR 381 where the Supreme Court held at Holding 1 as follows: “It is the duty of a plaintiff who claims a declaration of title to land to identify clearly to the court the area of land to which his claim relates…” I observed that the Plaintiff has been able to trace their root of title to the disputed land through Alhaji Abu Issifu who acquired it and upon his death the disputed land assumed the character of a family property. The Plaintiff also described the boundaries of the disputed land clearly to the court which shares boundaries with Alasco Building to the right, Tailor Zei to the left, Abdulai Waali to the back and the frontage is the Eastern Corridor Highway. 32. The Plaintiff tendered in evidence exhibits “PE1” entitled: Statutory Declaration of Alhaji Abu Issifu, “PE2” entitled: Bimbilla Site for Alhaji Abu Issifu (Application for 99 years Lease), “PE3” ie, receipt issued by Administrator of Stool Lands and “PE4” (Site Plan in the name of Fuseini Dasana). These exhibits are documents affecting land which are chargeable to duty and therefore needed to be stamped at the Lands Commission to pass the test of admissibility. I will revisit these exhibits in the course of reading this judgment. 33. The Defendants, on the other hand, especially, the 2nd Defendant contended that in front of the Plaintiff’s land is a plot of land which his deceased father (Mr. Abukari) acquired from one Papa Kojo and same shares boundary with the Eastern Corridor Highway. 1st Defendant indicated that he was the caretaker for Papa Kojo when Papa Kojo bought the land, later when 2nd Defendant’s father allegedly acquired the land he was maintained as caretaker. He then put 3rd Defendant and some other persons on the disputed land to operate their businesses in his capacity as caretaker. 34. 1st Defendant maintained and forcefully held on to his assertion that he has been the caretaker of the disputed land all this while when it was acquired by the first grantee (Papa kojo), and played the same role for Abukari when the land was transferred to him. Papa kojo acquired the land sometime in 1976 and allegedly transferred same to Abukari in 1990. 1st Defendant is also on record to be 1974 born, and at the time of cross examination was 49 years old. This came to the knowledge of the court and is on records when 1st Defendant was ordered by the court to produce his Ghana Card. 35. The credibility of the 1st Defendant was put to test and same was inflicted when 1st Defendant was under cross examination. These are portions of what transpired between Plaintiff’s attorney and 1st Defendant on 10/10/2023: Q. You first told court that you are 49 years. In your witness statement you categorically stated that you have been a caretaker of the disputed land since the time of Papa Kojo. Ans. It is the truth. I was the one who was taking care of the land for Papa Kojo. That is my age I mentioned in court… Q. Put: that you were 2 years old when Papa Kojo acquired the land according to your document? Ans. For me I do not know. Q. Put: that Papa Kojo acquired the land in 1976 according to your exhibit. Ans. Yes. 36. And on 16/10/2023 this is what ensued between the parties, that is, Plaintiff’s attorney and 1st Defendant: Q. Put: that you continued your caretaker role when you were 16 years Ans. It is not true. It is not that Papa Kojo bought the land and handed it to me. He was in our house when Papa Kojo bought the land. It was in 1994 that Papa Kojo handed over to me and left for his home town. Q. Put: that in your exhibit Papa kojo transferred the land to Abukari in 1990. Ans. I was asked by Papa Kojo to take care of the land and later Abukari Tokosi also asked me to do same. Put: that in 1994 papa Kojo never owned the land so how could he have taken you as a caretaker? Ans. I was only asked to take care of the land and later by Abukari Tokosi. But how they came by the transaction of the land I was not part of it. 37. Flowing from the above interaction, 1st Defendant has not been truthful to this court, and his credibility has gravely been dented creating doubt in the mind of the court as to whether 1st Defendant was and is truly a caretaker of the disputed land. This is so due to the fact that if 1st Defendant was born in 1974, it is highly improbable for him to assume caretakership position at age two (2). 1st Defendant was quick to correct this blow of a shot to his credibility and said it was in 1994 that the land was handed over to him as a caretaker for Papa Kojo. But 1st Defendant was caught in another self dug pit which buried his integrity and credibility without pity for him. In 1994 Papa Kojo had transferred his interest in the disputed land to Abukari in 1990, so how could 1st Defendant act as a caretaker for Papa kojo. 38. The 2nd Defendant also tendered exhibits ‘1’ (a receipt of payment of one thousand in the name of B.K. Abukari), ‘2’ (Application for a Piece of Land for Building Purpose), ‘3’ (Change of Ownership of Plot at Market Area-Bimbilla) and ‘4’ (Transfer of Plot at the Central Market Residential Area-Bimbilla). 39. I stated earlier at paragraph 32 of this judgment to revisit the exhibits tendered by the Plaintiff in support of his case. As I stated they are chargeable to duty and needed to be stamped to pass the test of admissibility. Similarly, all the exhibits tendered by the 2nd Defendant to prove his case are likewise chargeable to duty and must be stamped to allow their admissibility. However, these exhibits from both parties were not stamped as required by subsection 1 of section 32 of the Stamp Duty Act, 2005 (Act 689). Again, I refer to the cases cited (supra) at paragraph 22 of this judgment in respect of insufficiently stamped documents tendered as evidence. Hence, these exhibits tendered by both parties and the purpose of their tendering cannot be accepted for any probative value to be placed on them. 40. The repeated request by the 2nd Defendant for the court to visit locus and to order for the disputed land to be measured prompted the court differently constituted to order for Survey Report from the office of the Lands Commission, Tamale. On 30/01/2023, this what D2 said in the course of cross examining Plaintiff’s attorney: “I want the court to visit the site.” And on 27/02/2023, 2nd Defendant again made this request: “I pray that the court order the requisite authorities to do the measurement and let the court have the truth, the truth is only one.” Upon completion of their work as experts in the field of survey, the Lands Commission submitted their Survey Report to court. Subsequently, copies were given to all the parties to study. The court expert also made certain observations at page 5 of the Report which the court deems it prudent to reproduce here as follows: a) “It can be seen that plot numbers 97, 98, 103 and 104 all share boundary with the proposed road reservation boundary alignment line. b) It can be seen that per the resent survey, the plot of land as owned and showed by the defendant falls on plot numbers 103 and 98 as well as the road reservation of the existing local plan…” 41. The observation made by the expert led to the following conclusions also at page 5 of the Report: a) “The structure of the plaintiff as owned and showed, was in existence at the time survey data was being collected for the preparation of the local plan for the area. b) There were no visible pillars that indicated the boundary of the defendant’s plot of land as of the time survey information was being gathered for the preparation of the local plan, by which the said plot of land could have been captured and incorporated into the local plan. c) That location of the plot of land as owned and showed by the defendant is not in conformity with the lay out of the plots in the local plan. d) A unique plot number cannot be assigned to the plot of land for the Defendant in accordance with the numbering parting as illustrated on the local plan.” 42. Aside this Survey Report, the court also carried out locus inspection on 27/11/2023 to confirm the findings of the court expert, and have first-hand information on the ground. Subsequently, the Locus Report was filed and copies were served on all the parties. Opportunity was offered the parties to cross examine the author of the report. Plaintiff’s attorney indicated that he has no questions for the author of the report but 1st and 2nd Defendant did. 43. My observation during inspection revealed that prior to the expansion of the Eastern Corridor Road, the Defendants were occupying noticeable portion of the road with metal containers. As a result of the road expansion those operating their businesses in these containers were affected hence, they were compensated to enable them relocate. But the Defendants decided to move those affected and displaced metal containers to the immediate front of the Plaintiff’s stores blocking the front view completely. 44. The 1st and 2nd Defendants forcefully argued that they legally acquired the land they occupy from the land owners, therefore if half of the land has been taken by the Eastern Corridor Road, they still have a portion left to hold on. These Defendants also made a case that they have erected corner pillars on their portion of the land which pillars were not seen during the court inspection. 45. The 2nd Defendant who incessantly requested for the appropriate authorities to do the measurement of the land at a point, and in his answer to a question posed to him, did not appreciate the Report submitted by the Lands Commission. This is part of what 2nd Defendant said in his answer on 16/10/2023 when he was under cross examination: Q. I hope you might have gone through the Composite Plan of the Survey Department of the Lands Commission, Tamale. Ans. Yes, I have. Q. I also hope you understood it very well. Ans. I went through but there are certain technicalities which I did not understand. When the chiefs sell land to you, the next thing is to invite the sanitary inspectors to come and look at the land whether it is a full land or not. We do not know those who came from Lands Commission, Tamale to do the Composite Plan. 46. The 2nd Defendant cannot approbate and reprobate. In other word, you cannot eat your cake and have it back. This is a government institution solely mandated for land title registration and other related matters. They have various departments or sections including Survey and Mapping Department responsible for technical work such as they did to assist the court determine this case. Though their Report is not binding on the court, it is to assist this court determine the matter before it. 47. Despite Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Defendants to move their containers to his immediate front, Defendants went ahead and placed their containers in the current place obstructing the front view of Plaintiff’s stores. This current position of the containers on a portion of land close to the expanded Eastern Corridor Road has pipe lines and cables and service lines running through the middle and in front of the Bimbilla Post Office, and in the same alignment through to GCB Bank, Bimbilla branch. This portion of land close to the road is the buffer zone mainly for burying of service cables, pipelines etc… and as such one cannot claim it to be a building plot. 48. It is sad to comment that, guided by the Survey Report, the Locus Inspection and evidence before the court, if any person granted a parcel of land to Papa Kojo @ Kwajo Fordjiour who allegedly transferred same to 2nd Defendant’s father Abukari Balla Kwaku, then it was erroneously granted without due diligent by the first grantee. I say this because of the fact that the description of the land the 2nd Defendant is claiming to belong to his father cannot be identified from the local plan and does not conform to the layout of plots in the local plan as well. 49. But all is not lost, if the 2nd Defendant believes that his deceased father had any land which has been taken by the Eastern Corridor Road, he can pursue Ghana Highways Authority for enhanced compensation. 50. Flowing from the evidence put forward by the parties in respect of issues (i) and (ii), it is so obvious and in my candid view the Plaintiff’s land shares boundary with the Eastern Corridor Road. The 2nd Defendant’s deceased father had no land identifiable in front of the Plaintiff’s land which also shares boundary with the road. The undeveloped portion of the old road was the portion the Defendants were occupying. The Eastern Corridor Road has now taken shape in Bimbilla Township, and all persons occupying portions of the undeveloped portions of the road including the defendants gave way for smooth execution of the project. CONCLUSION. 51. The court, after evaluation and analysis of evidence adduced by both parties and their witnesses, has found that the Plaintiff’s evidence as weighed vis a vis that of the Defendant carried much weight. Thus, the probative value placed on Plaintiff’s evidence, in totality, is higher and weightier. It is highly improbable that the 2nd Defendant’s father had any legally acquired land in front of Plaintiff’s land which shares boundary with the road. Consequently, the court makes the following orders: (i) It is declared that all that piece or parcel of land/plot lying and situate at Bimbilla New Market and shares boundaries with Alasco Building to the right, Tailor Zei to the left, Abdulai Waali to the back and the front the Eastern Corridor Highway is the bonafide property of the late Alhaji Abu Issifu. (ii) It is ordered that the Defendants vacate the land they occupy with metal containers which forms part of the Plaintiff’ front view within 21 days from today. (iii) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents, representatives and workmen from any way interfering with Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the said parcel of land/plot lying and situate at Bimbilla New Market as described in (i) above. (iv) Recovery of possession of the said land. (v) Cost of GHȼ4,000.00 is awarded in favour of plaintiff jointly and severally against the Defendants to defray part of the cost incurred by the Plaintiff for the Survey Report. SGD