DAMBA VRS KPANDAAN (NR/DC/WUL/A1/6/24) [2024] GHADC 454 (30 September 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT SITTING AT WULENSI ON THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP GODSON ETSE KUMADO, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. SUIT NO: NR/DC/WUL/A1/6/24 BONBOLN DAMBA SUING ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF SANBULTIIB’S FAMILY PER HIS LAWFUL ATTORNEY BIGUM MOSI VRS ] ] ] ] ] PLAINTIFF TAWAAN KPANDAAN ] SUING ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON ] BEHALF OF NAGNANTIIB’S FAMILY PER HIS LAWFUL ATTORNEY CHENJE TAWAAN ] ] ] DEFENDANT _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION By his writ of summons, the Plaintiff claims the following reliefs against the Defendant: 1. A declaration of title and ownership of a farming land of about 15 acres, lying and situated at the northern part of Jatodo and bounded by one Ngekina Tibantab, Bonboln Bimon and Bonboln Binaanba to the north, south and east is the Kumani stream stretching from Tinanjeria to Madado towards Kumudi at Kpandai and the western part is one Jato, Ipualiin, Nignaiwaan and Tawaan. 1 | P a g e 2. Recovery of the said farmland of about fifteen (15) acres that the defendant and his family trespassed and encroached. 3. Damages for trespass on the said farming land. 4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his family, his agents, representatives and his workmen from anyway interfering with plaintiff and his family’s quiet enjoyment of the said farmland. 5. Incidental cost and other cost of digging our cassava and taking same and spraying weedicide on our maize of four and half acres. 6. Cost of trial. 7. Any other order that the court may deem fit. The Defendant on his appearance in court upon the service of the writ on him pleaded not liable to all the reliefs claimed against him by the Plaintiff whereupon the parties were ordered to file their respective witness statements in proof of their cases. THE CASE AND EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF By the summary of subject matter attached to his writ, it is the case of the Plaintiff that his grandfather by name Bakatu Ngodan came to settle with his friend, Jato who settled at Kumboni. They were later joined by Jato’s brother by name Tamoba. According to the Plaintiff, this was in the 1800s. According to the Plaintiff, their grandfather and Jato later crossed over 2 | P a g e the stream to settle at present day Jatodo but continued farming on their old farmlands. Tamoba later joined them at Jatodo but he also continued farming his old farmlands. It is the case of the Plaintiff that all these while the Defendants were not farming on the disputed land. They were living and farming at Kuboni. According to him, it was in the 1900s that the Defendants left Kuboni to settle at Namani and faming lands which shared common boundary with their lands. It is the case of the Plaintiff that their farmland was initially about 80 acres but the Defendants have encroached on it and presently, it is reduced to only 15 acres. In the year 2023 the Defendant and his family asked them to vacate their farmlands because they cannot be crossing over the stream to farm. The Plaintiff averred that in August, 2023 the Defendant and his family sprayed weedicide on their four and half acre maize farm which was not yet ready for harvesting and raised yam mounds on the land so as to compel them to vacate the land. Again, in December, 2023 the Defendant and his family dug up their cassava and took same home. By his witness statement, the Plaintiff stated that he is a nephew to Bakatu Ngodan who was one of the first persons to settle at present day Tinangeria. His uncle, Bakatu migrated from Saboba and joined his friend, Jato who settled at Kumani near Tinangeria. According to the testimony of the Plaintiff’s lawful attorney, Jato was settled by Tingnanjer Munanpuan who was the first person to settle at present day Tinangeria. Tamoba joined his uncle and Jato and he was asked by Jato to settle few miles away near Kumboni and he settled on the disputed land. According to the testimony of the Plaintiff’s lawful attorney, his uncle Bakatu, Jato and Tamoba later decided to cross over the stream to settle at the present day Jatodo due to the flooding of the Kumani stream which cuts them away from the other parts of the district. 3 | P a g e Having found new farms, Tamoba and Jato decided to give out their farms to one of the sons of Bakatu by name Bigum Bakatu who also farmed on the said lands with his sons until his demise in July, 2017. After the demise of Bigum, his sons continued to farm on the disputed land until 2023 when the Defendant and his family claimed ownership of the disputed land. The lawful attorney for the Plaintiff testified that there are broken earthen wares and graves of his deceased family members on the land which evidences human settlement on the land. Again, one of the sons of Bigum planted cashew and mango trees on the disputed land. The lawful attorney for the Plaintiff again testified that in June 2023 he planted maize on four and half acres of the land which was at the tasseling stage when the Defendant and his family sprayed weedicides on the maize, cleared the land and raised yam mounds on it. In November, 2023 the Defendant and his family again dug up the cassava he planted on four and half acres of the land and he reported the matter to the assemblyman of the area. The Plaintiff filed witness statements for three (3) witnesses to testify in support of his case. However, only two of the said witnesses were called by him to testify. These are Ngekina Tibantob (PW1) and Jagri Njakuni (PW2). EVIDENCE OF NGEKINA TIBANTOB (PW1) PW1 testified that the land in dispute belongs to Tamoba and the Plaintiff’s family. Tamoba was the first to settle on the disputed land and he shared the farmland with his friend, Bonboln Damba. PW1 continued his testimony and stated that Tamoba was buried on the disputed land and there are graves and pits on the disputed land. He stated that their grandfathers had to swim across the stream to farm. EVIDENCE OF JAGRI NJAKUNI (PW2) PW2 on his part testified that he got to know of the disputed land because Bakatu used to organise communal labour for his in-law, Tamoba and he used to go and work on the land in dispute. He also stated that the grave of Tamoba is still on the land in dispute. 4 | P a g e THE CASE AND EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT By his witness statement the Defendant denies that the land in dispute belongs to the family of the Plaintiff. According to the lawful attorney for the Defendant, his grandfather by name Melpei was the first to settle at Kumboni and farmed on the disputed land. His father continued to farm on the disputed land after the death of his grandfather. He also grew up and joined his father to farm on the disputed land. According to his testimony, in 2019 the Plaintiff’s son by name Bigum came to beg for part of the disputed land to farm which he gave him but on the condition that he will give it back anytime he needed it. In 2023 he called Bigum and told him he should not farm on the disputed land because they are now many and had need of it. The Defendant’s lawful attorney continued his testimony and stated that the chiefs of Kumboni and Wulensi know that the disputed land belongs to his late father. He concluded his testimony by stating that there is a stream which shares boundary between the Plaintiff’s family land and his family land. The said stream also serves as boundary between Jatodo which is Plaintiff’s community and Kumboni. In support of his case the Defendant called three other witnesses to testify. They are Kujotiimo Naapuin (DW1), Ubor Baaku (DW2) and Ntaawan Baapei (DW3). EVIDENCE OF KUJOTIIMO NAAPUIN (DW1) DW1 stated that the Defendant’s grandfather, Malpei was the first person to farm on the disputed land. The Defendant inherited the farmland from his father who also inherited it through his grandfather. According to DW1, the Plaintiff’s son, Begum begged the Defendant for a portion of the disputed land which the Defendant gave him because they are of the same tribe and also due the inter-marriage relation between the two communities. The land which is about 15 acres was given to Begum on the condition that when they needed it, he will give it back which he agreed. In 2023, the Defendant called Begum and informed him not to farm on the land because the members of his family needed it for farming but he refused, hence the 5 | P a g e instant action. DW1 concluded his testimony and stated that the Plaintiff has his family land at Jatodo and that there is a stream which serves as the boundary mark between the disputed land and the Plaintiff’s family land. The testimonies of DW2 and DW3 are essentially a repetition of the witness statement of DW1. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION From the respective cases and testimonies of the parties, the issues essential to the determination of the dispute between the parties are: 1/ Whether or not the Plaintiff’s grandfather, Bakatu settled and farmed on the disputed land. 2/ Whether or not the Defendant granted the land in dispute to Begum who is a member of the Plaintiff’s family in the year 2019. 3/ Whether or not the Defendant and the members of his family sprayed weedicide on the Plaintiff’s four and half acre maize farm and dug up Plaintiff’s cassava. BURDEN OF PROOF The basic principle of the law of evidence is that the party who bears the burden of proof must adduce sufficient evidence in proof of his case. He does so by adducing cogent and admissible evidence so that the court, on all the evidence could be convinced of the existence of the facts claimed by him. This requirement is as provided by Sections 10 and 11 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), the relevant provisions of which are as follows: 10. Burden of persuasion defined 6 | P a g e (1) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of persuasion means the obligation of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court. (2) The burden of persuasion may require a party (a) to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the existence or non-existence of a fact, or (b) to establish the existence or non-existence of a fact by a preponderance of the probabilities or by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 11. Burden of producing evidence defined (1) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling on the issue against that party. (4) In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence which on the totality of the evidence, leads a reasonable mind to conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence. The position of the law was further explained by the Supreme Court in the case of DON ACKAH v PERGAH TRANSPORT [2011] 31 GMJ 174 where the Court noted per Adinyira JSC that: 7 | P a g e It is a basic principle of the law on 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. The method of producing evidence is varied and it includes the testimonies of the party and material witnesses, admissible hearsay, documentary and things (often described as real evidence), without which the party might not succeed to establish the requisite degree of credibility concerning a fact in the mind of the court or tribunal of fact such as a jury. It is trite law that matters that are capable of proof must be proved by producing sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact is more reasonable than its non-existence. The Plaintiff in the instant case asserts that his grandfather settled and farm on the disputed land. He also says that the Defendant and the members of his family in August and December, 2023 sprayed weedicide on his maize crop and dug up his cassava. The Defendant denies these claims made by the Plaintiff. The burden is therefore on the Plaintiff to adduce evidence by calling the necessary witnesses and producing other forms of evidence so that the court will be convinced on the existence of the facts he claims. On his part, the Defendant claims he granted the land in dispute to the Plaintiff’s father, a fact which the Plaintiff also denies. The burden is therefore on the Defendant to also adduce the necessary evidence so that the court could be convinced of the existence of the facts he alleges. DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES Since the determination of issues one and two will lead to a resolution of the ultimate issue of the ownership of the land in dispute, I will deal with both issues together. They are: 1/ Whether or not the Plaintiff’s grandfather, Bakatu settled and farmed on the disputed land. 8 | P a g e 2/ Whether or not the Defendant granted the land in dispute to Begum who is a member of the Plaintiff’s family in the year 2019. It has been the case of the Plaintiff that his grandfather, Bakatu settled on the land in dispute with Jato and Tamoba. They later relocated across the Kumani stream to settle at present day Jatodo. They however continued farming on their old farm lands. According to the Plaintiff’s lawful attorney, when Tamoba joined his grandfather and Jato, Jato asked Tamoba to move and settle some few miles away. He stated that the place Tamoba settled is the land in dispute. In further prove of his case, the Plaintiff’s lawful attorney testified that there are graves and broken earthen wares on the disputed land which proves that there was an early human settlement there. Again, the Plaintiff’s lawful attorney testified that one of the sons of Bigum planted cashew and mango trees on the disputed land. PW1, Ngekina Tibantob also testified that the land in dispute belongs to the Plaintiff’s family because Tamoba and the Plaintiff, who was his friend, settled on the land in dispute. PW1 testified that Tamoba died and was buried on the disputed land and there are graves and pits on the disputed land. The evidence of PW2, Jagri Njakuni was also that he knows Tamoba was the in-law of Bakatu and in those days Bakatu used to call for communal labours for his in-law. He therefore used to work on the disputed land. On his part the Defendant denied the claim by the Plaintiff and instead stated that the Plaintiff’s father, Bigum came to plead for the disputed land from him in 2019 for farming which he gave him but on the condition that he will surrender possession of same anytime his family needed it. All the three witnesses called by the Defendant stated in their evidence in chief that it was the Defendant who granted the land to Bigum in 2019 and told him to surrender possession of same anytime his family needed it. During his cross-examination of PW1, the Defendant maintained that the grandfather of the Plaintiff settled at Jatodo and not 9 | P a g e Kumboni. Then soon after that, he says that the grandfather of the Plaintiff settled at Kumboni with his grandfather, and since he has migrated to another community, the lands at Kumboni no longer belong to him. This is what transpired during the cross-examination of PW1 by the Defendant’s lawful attorney: Q. Your grandfather settled at Jatodo and not at Kumboni. A. My grandfather was settled at Kumboni. The house in which he lived is still there. At another section of the cross-examination, the Defendant’s lawful attorney posed the following questions during his cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s lawful attorney: Q. Your grandfather came to Kumboni to settle with my grandfather. After your grandfather migrated to Jatodo, does the land at Kumboni still belong to him? A. That is not true. Your grandfather did not give the land to my grandfather. Jatodo is not far from the land in dispute. From the extract of cross-examination referred to, the Defendant at one point denies that the Plaintiff’s grandfather ever settled at Kumboni. He stated that the Plaintiff’s grandfather rather settled at Jatodo and not at Kumboni. Then when he was given the opportunity to cross- examine the Plaintiff, he now says that the Plaintiff’s grandfather came to Kumboni to settle with his grandfather. During his cross-examination of PW2, the Defendant admitted that the Plaintiff’s grandfather was the nephew of Tamoba and that he settled with Tamoba. This is what ensued: 10 | P a g e Q. Tamoba was the one settling on the land. Tamoba was the uncle of Bakatu. Bakatu came to settle with his uncle, Tamoba. Bakatu calls for communal labour to assist his uncle, Tamoba. A. Bakatu settled there having his own lands on which he was farming. He used to call us for communal labour to come and help him. From the excerpt of cross-examination referred, it is case of the Defendant that Bakatu came to with live his uncle, Tamoba on the land and used to call for communal labour to assist Tamoba on his farm. Interestingly however, when the Defendant opened his case and was being cross- examined by the Plaintiff, the Defendant changed his story. He now says he never mentioned that Tamoba is uncle to Bakatu and that the grandparents of the Plaintiff never farmed on the land. He further stated that they are only aware of Tamoba who settled on the land. This is what transpired during the cross-examination of the Defendant’s lawful attorney by the Plaintiff’s lawful attorney: Q. My grandfather, Bakatu was settling on the land together with Tamoba and they were farming on the disputed land together. If you say they were not farming there, where were they farming? A. We only know Tamoba who was farming there, not Bakatu. Q. Are you aware Bakatu’s uncle is Tamoba? A. No. 11 | P a g e Q. But you stated in court that Tamoba was the uncle of Bakatu and they were farming on the land together. A. I did not say that. It was only Tamoba we know. From the respective cross-examinations, the Defendant says one thing at one moment, and then denies the very thing he has said the next moment. He first stated his case that the Plaintiff’s grandfather settled at Jatodo and not at Kumboni. Then he later admitted that the Plaintiff’s grandfather came to settle at Kumboni with his uncle, Tamoba and was even calling for communal labours to assist Tamoba on his farm. Then the next occasion, he says they do not know of the Plaintiff’s grandfather at Kumboni and that it was only Tamoba they know. He even denied saying Tamoba is the uncle of Bakatu contrary to what he previously stated on the records. In my opinion, all of these go to the credibility of the Defendant’s lawful attorney. The contradictions in his case were clear from the onset. In his evidence in chief as well as those of his witnesses, the Defendant states it was Bigum, the Plaintiff’s father who came for grant of the land from him in the year 2019. Then during the respective cross-examinations, his story changes and he now says it was his grandfather who granted the land to the Plaintiff’s grandfather. It is however not disputed that Tamoba ever settled on the land and that the land in dispute was the very place he settled at before migrating to Jatodo. From the excerpts of cross- examination referred to above, the Defendant’s lawful attorney admits that Bakatu was settling on the land with his uncle, Tamoba. In his cross-examination of the Defendant’s lawful attorney, the Plaintiff stated that his grandmother’s grave is on the land and they go there to pour libation on the said grave. The Defendant admitted that the grave is on the land but says Tamoba came to ask them for permission to bury his sister on the land. The Plaintiff again stated during his cross-examination of the Defendant’s lawful attorney that when he grew up, 12 | P a g e his father showed him the grave of his grandfather on the land, and the place he dug gravel at Kumboni. On a consideration of all the evidence, I find as a fact that Tamoba settled on the disputed land with his nephew, Bakatu who is the grandfather of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has adduced evidence which was not denied by the Defendant that there are graves, pits and broken earthen wares on the disputed land which indicates that people settled there years ago. The Plaintiff has also adduced evidence that his grandmother’s grave is on the land. On his part, apart from asserting that the land in dispute was granted to the grandfather of the Plaintiff by his grandfather, the Defendant adduced no further evidence to substantiate his claim of ownership over the land. He could not prove any acts of possession exhibited by him or his family during the time the Plaintiff’s grandfather and father farmed the disputed land. He could have adduced evidence of performance of sacrifices on the land, or such similar acts which proves ownership of the land but filed to do so. The case of the Defendant has been that Tamoba is no longer settled on the land as he has migrated to Jatodo and so they have taken back their lands. At other parts, he says that the Plaintiff’s grandfather is no longer settled on the land and so the land no longer belongs to him. Then at other times, he says that the Kumani stream is the boundary mark between Jatodo and Kumboni and so the Plaintiff’s family cannot cross over the stream to farm on their lands. He stated his reason for claiming the disputed land during his cross-examination by the Plaintiff’s lawful attorney as follows: Q. Can you tell me the reason why one cannot cross over a stream which separates two communities to farm? 13 | P a g e A. Yes, you cannot cross over to farm. The reason is that when a stream separates two communities and you are in Jatodo, you must farm in Jatodo, and if you are in Kumboni, you must farm in Kumboni. I must say that the reasoning of the Defendant is misconceived and borne out of ignorance. I do not know of any law in Ghana which provides that where a stream separates two communities, no one could cross over the stream to farm. One of the main issues in this case is whether or not the Plaintiff’s grandfather settled and farmed on the disputed land. If the answer is yes then there is no rule which prevents him and his descendants from crossing over the Kumani stream to farm on the disputed land. The other reason the Defendant wants the Plaintiff vacated on the land is that they are no longer settled at Kumboni. They have migrated to a different community and so they have taken back their lands. This view held by the Defendant is again misconceived and borne out of ignorance. The important question to determine is whether the land in dispute was granted to the Plaintiff’s grandfather by the Defendant’s grandfather. It is only when the answer is in the affirmative that the Defendant can claim the land as belonging to him. Otherwise, you cannot claim ownership of another’s land merely because he has migrated to another community. I find that the Defendant has not been able to prove that the land was granted to the Plaintiff’s grandfather by his grandfather. I also find that the Plaintiff’s grandfather even after migrating to Jatodo were crossing over the Kumani stream to farm on the disputed land. This piece of evidence was admitted by the DW1, Kujotiimo Naapuin during his cross-examination by the Plaintiff’s lawful attorney: 14 | P a g e Q. As at the time my grandfathers farmed on the disputed land, they were crossing over the Kumani stream to the farm. We have mango and cashew trees on the disputed land. A. It is true. There are cashew and mango trees on the land. It is true your grandfathers were crossing over the stream to the farm. I am of the opinion that the Plaintiff has been able to prove, on the balance of probabilities that his grandfather settled on the land with Tamoba and that even after migrating to settle at Jatodo, they still crossed over the Kumani stream to farm the disputed land, a fact which the Defendant’s attorney admits. I therefore hold that the land in dispute is the property of the Plaintiff’s family. 3/ Whether or not the Defendant and the members of his family sprayed weedicide on the Plaintiff’s four and half acre maize farm and dug up Plaintiff’s cassava. It is the case of the Plaintiff that in August, 2023 the Defendant and the members of his family sprayed weedicide on his four and half acre maize farm which was at the tasseling stage. In December, 2023 the Defendant and the members of his family again harvested his cassava on the land. The Defendant on his part denied these claims made by the Plaintiff. The burden is therefore on the Plaintiff to adduce evidence to substantiate his claims. PW1 and PW2 called by the Plaintiff to testify in support of his case did not corroborate this testimony of the Plaintiff. They made no mention of the Defendant harvesting the Plaintiff’s cassava which they witnessed or the Defendant spraying weedicide on the Plaintiff’s maize crop. During his cross- examination of the Defendant’s lawful attorney however, the Plaintiff maintained that the Defendant sprayed weedicide on their maize crops and harvested their cassava. He added that 15 | P a g e they took pictures of the cassava that was harvested. This is what transpired during the cross- examination of the Defendant by the Plaintiff: Q. Our food crops were on the land when you came to spray weedicide on same. A. There were no food crops on the land. Q. What you just said is not true. We cultivated about 4 acres of maize. We even reported the matter to the Police. A. That is not true. There is no maize crop on the land. You harvested the maize before we came to spray it. I told you not to farm on the land but you refused. Q. We did not harvest the maize. It was tasseling at the time when you came to spray it with weedicides. A. You harvested all the maize before we came to spray it. When you brought the police commander to the farm he witnessed it. Q. We planted about two and half acres of cassava on the land and your children came to harvest it. A. That is not true. Q. When your children came to harvest our cassava, they stored the cassava on the land and raised yam mounds on the land. You then called my brother to inform him. 16 | P a g e A. That is not true. Q. We even took pictures of the cassava you harvested. A. Those pictures were not shown to me so I do not know. From this excerpt of the cross-examination of the Defendant’s lawful attorney by the Plaintiff, it is not in dispute that the Defendant and the members of his family sprayed the land in dispute. The Defendant however denied that there was any maize crop on the land. He also denied that his children harvested the Plaintiff’s cassava on the land. It was therefore incumbent on the Plaintiff to adduce evidence to substantiate his claim. The basic law on evidence is that when a party makes an assertion which is denied by his opponent, he must lead evidence so that the court will find that his assertion is true. See the case of ZABRAMA v SEGBEDZI [1991] 2 GLR 221 where the Court held that: “[A] person who makes an averment or assertion, which is denied by his opponent, has the burden to establish that his averment or assertion is true. And he does not discharge this burden unless he leads admissible and credible evidence from which the fact or facts he asserts can properly and safely be inferred. The nature of each averment or assertion determines the degree and nature of that burden.” The assertion of the Plaintiff having been denied by the Defendant, the Plaintiff needed to lead admissible and credible evidence to substantiate his claim. As I indicated earlier, none of the witnesses called by the Plaintiff testified to this fact in their evidence in chiefs. As regards the maize crops, the Defendant did not deny spraying weedicides on the land. The main issue is whether the Defendant sprayed the weedicides on the land while there were maize crops on 17 | P a g e the land. The case of the Plaintiff would have been helped if he had called witnesses to testify that indeed, there were maize crops on the land when Defendant and his family sprayed the weedicides on the land. Another option was to tender in evidence pictures of the sprayed maize crops. All of these would have assisted the court in making a determination whether there were maize crops on the land at the time the land was sprayed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff however failed to produce these pieces of evidence. The Plaintiff again stated that the said matter was reported to the Police. No evidence of criminal prosecution against the Defendant for unlawful damage or statements given at the Police station was also tendered by the Plaintiff. Regarding his claim that the Defendant’s children harvested his cassava on the land in dispute, the Plaintiff’s lawful attorney stated categorically that he took pictures of the harvested cassava which was stored on the disputed land by the Defendant’s children. The Plaintiff however failed to tender the said pictures in evidence in support of his case. He said the Defendant called his brother to inform him of the cassava that was harvested and stored on the farm. His said brother was also not called to testify to that fact. In my opinion, the Plaintiff has not been able to discharge the burden placed on him to prove his assertion that the Defendant and his family sprayed weedicide on his maize crop, and also that the Defendant and the members of his family harvested his cassava on the disputed land. The testimony of the Plaintiff alone, unsupported by any other evidence is, in my opinion, insufficient to substantiate his claims, especially so when he could have called witnesses or produced other evidence such as pictures in support of his claims but failed to do so. CONCLUSION AND FINAL ORDERS The main issues in this case are whether the Plaintiff’s grandfather settled on the disputed land; and whether the Defendant granted the disputed land to Bigum, Plaintiff’s father. I have 18 | P a g e found from the evidence that the Plaintiff’s grandfather, Bakatu settled and farmed on the disputed land with his uncle, Tamoba. They crossed over the Kumani stream to farm on the disputed land even after they left Kumboni to settle at Jatodo. The Defendant on the other hand has failed to prove that the land was granted to the Plaintiff’s grandfather by his grandfather. I therefore hold that the Plaintiff’s family is the rightful owner of the disputed land. On the issue of whether the Defendant and the members of his family sprayed weedicide on Plaintiff’s maize crops and harvested Plaintiff’s cassava, I find that the Plaintiff has failed to prove his claims. No evidence was adduced by the Plaintiff to prove that his maize crops were on the land when the Defendant sprayed weedicide on the land. The photographs of the harvested cassava which the Plaintiff claims he took were not tendered in evidence by him. The Plaintiff therefore succeeds on reliefs 1 and 2 of his claims which are declaration of title to the disputed land and recovery of possession of same. Accordingly, the Defendant, his agents, assigns, workmen and all persons claiming title through him are retrained from interfering with the Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the disputed land. It is evident from the cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s attorney by the Defendant’s attorney that the Defendant and the members of his family have raised yam mounds on the disputed land after claiming same from the Plaintiff. This means they have denied the Plaintiff and the members of his family the use of their 15 acre farmland from August, 2023 when they went to spray same till this day. I therefore award general damages of GH¢10,000 against the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff. I award cost of 2,000 against the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff. SGD H/W GODSON ETSE KUMADO 19 | P a g e