CARD FNGO & ANOTHER VRS TUNTEIYA & ANOTHER (A1/12/2023) [2024] GHADC 385 (29 January 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 2, TAMALE HELD ON MONDAY 29TH JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP D. ANNAN ESQ. SUIT NO. A1/12/23 BETWEEN CARD FNGO & ANOR. - PLAINTIFFS AND ALHASSAN TUNTEIYA & ANOR. - DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1. This judgment relates to land. 2. The 2nd plaintiff is the managing director of the 1st plaintiff company. 1st plaintiff company is into money lending. The 1st defendant took a loan from the 1st plaintiff. The 2nd defendant purchased a land from the 1st defendant. The said land is the subject matter of this case. 3. On 28th April, 2023 the plaintiffs took out a writ of summons against the defendants for the following reliefs: a. A declaration of title of Plot no. 115 situate in Savelugu Nanton Municipality at Sahakpaligu North West Residential Area, Block B. b. Recovery of possession of plot no. 115 situate in Savelugu Nanton Municipality at Sahakpaligu North West Residential Area, Block B - 1 - c. An order of specific performance for the 1st defendant to complete documents to plot no. 115 in favour of the plaintiff d. Damages for trespass and breach of contract. e. Any other relief(s) as the justice of the case may require. 4. The 1st defendant disputed plaintiffs’ claim, but did not file any process. He was heard viva-voce. 2nd defendant, on his part, filed a Response to Plaintiffs’ Summary of Subject Matter contending that the plaintiffs have no capacity to institute this action. He claimed he had rightfully acquired the plot in dispute from the 1st defendant. He counterclaimed against the plaintiffs for trespass. 5. After restraining all parties or their agents, privies, workmen, etc from having anything to do on the land in dispute until the final determination of this case, the plaintiffs and 2nd defendant filed witness statements in respect of their case. Below are the respective cases of either party. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE 6. 2nd Plaintiff, Naresh Chandra Shukla, testified for himself and on behalf of the 1st plaintiff. According to him, sometime in 2018 the 1st defendant took a loan of GHS10,000.00 from 1st plaintiff. 1st defendant, however, failed to pay the said loan to which 1st plaintiff obtained judgment at the District Court 1, Tamale to recover an amount of GHS26,480.00 being the debt outstanding. 2nd plaintiff added that after obtaining judgment, the 1st defendant approached him and offered Plot no. 115 situate at Sahakpaligu North West Residential Area Block B, Savelugu, the land in dispute, as settlement of the debt to which plaintiffs accepted. However, since 1st defendant did not have a lease on the land, the 1st defendant caused the chief of the area where the land is situate to prepare a new allocation note of the said land in the name of 2nd - 2 - plaintiff. 2nd plaintiff averred that prior to being given the new allocation note, he had gone into possession of the land by erecting sign posts on it. Plaintiffs maintain that since 1st defendant had transferred his interest in the disputed land, 1st defendant had no interest thereof in selling same to 2nd defendant. Any sale or transfer to 2nd defendant, according to the 2nd plaintiff was perpetuated by fraud. Hence, praying for the reliefs aforementioned. 7. Plaintiffs tendered in evidence: Exhibit A - Application letter of 1st defendant for the GHS10,000.00 loan dated 18/6/18. Exhibit B - Copy of the allocation paper of the disputed land bearing the name of 1st defendant, dated 22/2/18 together with a site plan. Exhibit C- Copy of the new allocation paper bearing the name of the 2nd plaintiff dated, 22/12/18. 8. Plaintiffs did not call any other witness. DEFENDANTS’ CASE 1st Defendant’s case 9. According to 1st defendant, on 8/6/18 he took a loan of GHS10,000.00 from the 1st plaintiff to be repaid after 3months. He stated he used Plot no. 63, Sahakpaligu North West Residential Area Block B, Savelugu as a collateral. He, however, was unable to pay the said loan. He was taken to court in 2020 and judgment was entered against him. He added that 2nd plaintiff and his workmen then informed him that he was to pay a sum of GHs26,480.00. He explained that at that time, he was unwell so he pleaded to give plot no. 63 in satisfaction of the debt. 1st defendant averred the plaintiffs accepted and valued the land but same could not satisfy the entire debt, so - 3 - plaintiffs requested for another plot, which is now the land in dispute. He disputed the request by plaintiffs, stating that he had already sold it to the 2nd defendant in 2018. 10. The matter was referred to the Sahakpaligu Palace where the chief, according to 1st defendant, confirmed that he could not transfer plot no. 115 to the plaintiffs. 1st defendant stated that he did not hear from the plaintiffs again, until this present suit. Upon being served with the writ, he visited the plaintiffs to resolve the outstanding debt and maintained that anything regarding plot no. 115 was a closed book. This, the plaintiffs refused. 11. He tendered in evidence a copy of the allocation paper for Plot no. 63 together with a site plan as Exhibit 1. He did not call any witness. 2nd defendant’s case 12. 2nd defendant did not testify in person but called a witness, Ibrahim Majeed (DW1). Let me point out here that counsel for 2nd defendant sought to tender a Power of Attorney filed on 20/11/23 way after DW1 had filed a witness statement (as at 21/7/23). This was objected to and same upheld. Further, it is not against the rules that a party may decide not testify personally, but call witness(es). Hence, the court proceeded with the witness statement of DW1. 13. According to DW1, on 10/1/18 the 2nd defendant paid for the plot in dispute, Plot no. 115, to the 1st defendant. He added that 1st defendant presented the allocation letter to 2nd defendant and on 3/5/18 1st defendant executed to a statutory declaration transferring his interest therein. DW1 stated further that he was instructed by 2nd defendant to open a file at the Lands Commission to which a lease agreement was executed. DW1 averred that 2nd defendant also caused 3,000 blocks to be molded on - 4 - the plot. However, sometime in 2020 when he (DW1) visited the land in dispute, he noticed strange pillars bearing the number of 2nd plaintiff. According to DW1, the 2nd plaintiff explained that 1st defendant owed 1st plaintiff and the said land had been transferred to 2nd plaintiff. He questioned plaintiffs whether they had conducted a search on the land, but plaintiffs answered in the negative. DW1 then filed for a search at the Lands Commission which confirmed that the land was still in the name of the 2nd defendant. He then visited the plaintiffs’ office and demanded plaintiffs to remove their pillars, but plaintiffs failed. Later, the 2nd defendant caused the pillars to be removed. Sometime in 2021, the 2nd defendant started constructing a 3-bedroom on the said land, but 2nd plaintiff reported the matter to the Sahakpaligu Chief for trespass. DW1 averred that the chief confirmed the 2nd defendant as the rightful owner and so continued with the construction. Yet, plaintiffs will not heed to the decision of the chief and instituted this present action. 2nd defendant challenged the capacity of the plaintiffs for instituting this case, but counterclaimed for trespass against the plaintiffs, jointly and severally. 14. He tendered in evidence the following exhibits: Exhibit 2 – Copy of Allocation paper of Plot No. 115 bearing the name of the 1st defendant dated 22/2/18 Exhibit 3 - Statutory Declaration by 1st defendant transferring interest in Plot No. 115 to 2nd defendant Exhibit 4 - Copy of the lease agreement executed between Naton-Gbonlana Alhaji Saaka Sulley the Regent of Nanton Traditional Area and Kampakuya-Na Abdulai Yakubu acting Ya-Na on the one part and Hussein Adam (2nd defendant) on the other part, dated 1/11/18. Exhibit 5 - Copy of the Search Report confirming Plot no. 115 in the name of the 2nd defendant, dated 24/8/20. - 5 - 15. The 2nd defendant also did not call any witness. ISSUE FOR TRIAL 16. The issues borne out of the facts are: a. Whether or not the plaintiffs have capacity to institute this action? b. Whether or not 1st defendant had validly transferred Plot no. 115 situate at Sahakpaligu North West Residential Area Block B, Savelugu to the plaintiffs in satisfaction of his debt or fraudulently transferred same to the 2nd defendant? c. Whether or not plaintiffs or 2nd defendant trespassed onto Plot no. 115 situate at Sahakpaligu North West Residential Area Block B, Savelugu? BURDEN OF PROOF 17. In civil cases, the general rule is that the party who in his pleadings or his writ raises issues essential to the success of his case assumes the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities. See the cases of Faibi v State Hotels Corporation [1968] GLR 471 and In re Ashalley Botwe Lands; Adjetey Agbosu & Ors. v. Kotey & Ors. [2003-2004] SCGLR 420. The Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) uses the expression ‘burden of persuasion’ and in section 14 that expression has been defined as relating to, ‘each fact the existence or non-existence of which is essential to the claim or defence he is asserting.’ See also ss. 11(4) and 12(1) and (2) of NRCD 323. 18. With regards to what is required of the plaintiff in land cases, the law is that the he must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case, see Odametey v Clocuh [1989-90] 1 GLR 14, SC. In Kodilinye v Odu [1935] 2 WACA 336, the court puts it simply that “in case of doubt, …the party who asserts must lose.” - 6 - 19. Lastly, where there is a counterclaim, the counter claimant must also prove his case. The Supreme Court speaking through His Lordship Ansah JSC in the case Osei v Korang [2013] 58 GMJ 1, stated as follows: “… each party bears [the] onus of proof as to which side has a claim of title against his/her adversary, for a counter claimant is as good as a plaintiff in respect of a property which should he assays to make his/her own.” 20. Again, where a party pleads fraud in civil case, the law regarding the proof of that criminal act is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Section 13(1) of NRCD 323 provides, “In a civil or criminal action, the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.” See also the cases of Aryeh & Akakpo v Ayaa Iddrisu [2010] SCGLR 891 at 903 and Sasu Bamfo v Sintim [2012] 1 SCGLR 136 at 148. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE 21. Before I proceed to analyse the various issues, I note the written address filed by counsel for the plaintiff to which I shall make reference to same. Issue a 22. I will start with issue a, whether or not the plaintiffs have capacity to institute this action? Capacity to institute and/or maintain an action remains a cardinal hurdle that must be jumped if either party is to remain in a case. The law is that a party to an action must have capacity and that an objection to capacity of a party may be raised at any time, see Sam Jonah v Duodo-Kumi [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 50. In R v High Court, Accra, Ex parte Aryeetey (Ankra Interested Party) [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 398 the Supreme Court held that, “any challenge to capacity therefore puts the validity of the writ in issue. It is a proposition familiar to all lawyers that the question of capacity, - 7 - like the plea of limitation, is not concerned with the merits …”. In effect, where it is established that a party does not have capacity or is not a proper person to a suit, then there is no need to go into the merits of the case. The suit is to be dismissed. See the cases of Sarkodie v Boateng II [1982-83] 1 GLR 715 SC, Fosua & Adu Poku v Dufie (Dec’d) v Adu Poku Mensah [2009] SCGLR 310, Duah v Yorkwah [1992-1993] 1 GBR 278 CA, HFC Bank (Ghana) Ltd. v Abeka Suit No. J4/5/2018 dated 12th June, 2019, Kasseke Akoto Dugbartey Sappor & 2 Ors. v Very Rev. Solomon Dugbatey Sappor & 4 Ors. Suit No. J4/46/2020 dated 13th January 2021, SC (unreported). 23. From the above, the 2nd defendant is required to establish that the plaintiffs do not have capacity to institute this action. The law further requires from the 2nd defendant that, “where a party makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way, e.g. by producing documents, description of things, reference to other facts, instances, or circumstances, and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the witness box and repeating that averment on oath, or having it repeated on oath by his witness. He proves it by producing other evidence of facts and circumstances, from which the Court can be satisfied that what he avers is true.” See the celebrated case of Majolagbe v. Larbi [1959] GLR 190 per Ollennu J., at page 192. 24. According to the 2nd defendant, the 1st plaintiff is not a registered money lending company that is why the 2nd plaintiff had to be named as part of the suit. Counsel for 2nd defendant contended further that the land in dispute, if any, should have been issued in the name of the 1st plaintiff and not the 2nd plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiffs be unsuited in this case. Below is what ensued when 2nd plaintiff was under cross- examination: “Q: Your Card FNGO is not a registered money lending institution, not so? - 8 - A: It is not so. Q: I am putting it to you that if it was a registered money lending institution you would have shown those documents to this court? A: We are willing to submit any document which is required for this case. Q: But for now, there is nothing that shows the identity of your organisation as a registered money lender? A: We are ready to submit any relevant document as and when necessary. Q: And if you claim that Card FNGO is a registered institution with capacity to sue on its own, you would not have added yourself to the suit? A: When the allocation of the land was provided by the chief, they asked me for an address, the name was given as Card FNGO represented by me, but chief opted to write my name instead of Card FNGO. Q: And if the chief made a mistake as you claim, you had every opportunity to correct it but you did not? A: We do not know that it was a mistake. I am a founding member of the institution and I legally represent the institution. … Q: I am putting it to you that you have no capacity to initiate an action against the 2nd defendant? - 9 - A: I and being the owner of the institution have the right to institute this action.” 25. I have considered the evidence on the instant issue, I find that the 2nd defendant did not lead sufficient evidence to which the plaintiffs are to be unsuited, more particularly when his assertion was denied. If he was minded, he would have filed disclosures or shown documents, facts or circumstances to which plaintiffs are to be unsuited, but not to simply repeat his averments, see Majolagbe v. Larbi (supra). The above was all that was said about the plaintiffs’ capacity. I therefore come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are proper parties to institute this action. I will however deal with the issue of the allocation paper issued in the name of the 2nd plaintiff, later in this judgment. Issue b 26. Issue b is, whether or not 1st defendant had validly transferred Plot no. 115 situate at Sahakpaligu North West Residential Area Block B, Savelugu to the plaintiffs in satisfaction of his debt or fraudulently transferred same to the 2nd defendant? 27. Regarding transfer of interest in land, the law is simply that one cannot give what he does not have. Hence, where a land owner alienates a land, he cannot purport to grant the same land to another, the reason being that the earlier grant has the effect of divesting the owner of whatever interest he might have in the land and so he would have nothing in the land to purport to grant the second time. This is known as the nemo dat quod non habet principle. This position has been emphasized in a number of cases including Saanbaye Basilde Kangbere v Alhaji Seidu Mohammed [2012] - 10 - DLSC 6442 and George Kwadwo Asante & Anor. v Madam Abena Amponsah & Anor. [2022] DLSC 11677. 28. Also, with registration of a deed, it is trite that a registration of a deed in land does not guarantee ownership, but priority. The courts have held that the registration of an instrument creates priority over an earlier unregistered instrument affecting the same land, only if the later instrument was obtained without fraud and without notice of the earlier instrument, see the case of Amuzu v Oklikah [1997-1998] GLR 89. Therefore, a deed or land title certificate obtained by fraud or mistake can be ordered to be cancelled by the courts, see the case of Mary Larley Nunoo v Manase Atagloe, Suit No. J4/7/18 Unreported SC, dated 28/7/20. 29. Now, it is trite law that he who asserts must prove. In the case Okudzeto Ablakwa (No. 2) v. Attorney-General & Obetsebi-Lamptey (No. 2) [2012] 2 SCGLR 845, the Supreme Court in dealing with the onus of proof of an allegation held at page 867 as follows: “...What this rule literally means is that if a person goes to Court to make an allegation, the onus is on him to lead evidence to prove that allegation, unless the allegation is admitted. If he fails to do that, the ruling on that allegation will go against him. Stated more explicitly, a party cannot win a case in Court if the case is based on an allegation which he fails to prove or establish.” 30. It is also settled law that a person claiming title has to prove (i) his root of title, (ii) mode of acquisition, and (iii) various acts of possession over the disputed land, see Yehans International Ltd. v Martey Tsuru Family & Anor. [2018] DLSC 2488. Hence, - 11 - in land cases, a party must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case, see Odametey v Clocuh [supra]. 31. Based on the above authorities, the plaintiffs are to lead sufficient evidence in proof on the balance of probabilities that the 1st defendant had validly transferred his interest in Plot no. 115 situate at Sahakpaligu North West Residential Area Block B, Savelugu to them, prior to that of the 2nd defendant. 32. It is important to recap here that where fraud is pleaded in civil case, the law regarding the proof of that criminal act is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Section 13(1) of NRCD 323. See also the cases of Aryeh & Akakpo v Ayaa Iddrisu [supra] and Sasu Bamfo v Sintim [supra]. The plaintiffs pleaded that the 1st defendant perpetuated fraud by selling the land in dispute to the 2nd defendant. At paragraph 11 of their Summary of Subject Matter, they stated that: “11. The plaintiffs say that the 1st defendant by his action has perpetuated fraud against the plaintiffs: Particular of fraud a. The 1st defendant sold the land to the 2nd defendant knowing very well that the land was transferred to the 2nd plaintiff to satisfy a judgment debt. b. The 1st defendant made duplicates of the allocation papers returned to the chiefs, thus getting clearance of the customary lands officers to process documentation at Lands Commission. c. The 1st defendant with the intention of depriving the plaintiffs of ownership of Plot no. 115, surreptitiously sells same land to 2nd defendant who quickly acquires documentation of the property in dispute.” - 12 - 33. With the above, the plaintiffs are required to prove the issue of fraud beyond reasonable doubt. 34. Counsel for plaintiffs in his written address submitted that 1st defendant surrendered Plot no. 115 in settlement of the judgment debt of GHS26,480.00. He added that due to reluctance of the 1st defendant, the matter was taken to the chief palace where the allocation made to the 1st defendant on the 22/2/18 was cancelled and a new one issued in the name of the 2nd plaintiff dated 22/12/18. Counsel for plaintiffs argued that since the allocation notes are usually issued in duplicate or triplicate, it is possible that after copies of the allocation notes issued to the 1st defendant were cancelled, 1st defendant still had an uncancelled copy, for instance see Exhibit 1 which 1st defendant presented in court. Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted further that it was not possible for 2nd defendant to be sold Plot no. 115 either on 22/2/18 (see Exhibit 2 the allocation paper to 1st defendant) or on 3/5/18 (see Exhibit 3, the Statutory Declaration executed by 1st defendant). According to counsel for plaintiffs, since 2nd defendant claims that he paid for the disputed land on 10/1/18, that is a complete fraud because as at that time the 1st defendant could not have owned the property. Also, that the subsequent transfer, Exhibit 3, based on the said sale and registration at the Lands Commission are fraudulent. 35. I totally agree with the submissions of counsel for the plaintiffs on the above issue. The law is apparently clear that one cannot give what he does not have, see the nemo dat quod non habet principle, let alone to transfer to one or more people. Before 22/2/18 the 1st defendant had not been allocated the land in dispute. Clearly, the 1st defendant could not have sold the land to 2nd defendant on 10/1/18, since that was way before he acquired the land. Accordingly, I find that the plaintiffs have proved beyond - 13 - reasonable doubt the transfer of the said land by 1st defendant to 2nd defendant was perpetuated by fraud. In effect, the transfer, Exhibit 3, based on the sale of 10/1/18 is hereby set aside. Equally, one cannot put something on nothing. Therefore, Exhibit 4 the deed registered with the Lands Commission on 1/11/18 obtained based on the fraud transaction cannot stand. This court is clothed with powers to cancel such registration, see the case of Mary Larley Nunoo v Manase Atagloe [supra]. The Lands Commission to cancel the records of Exhibit 4 from its registry, forthwith. 36. Despite the above holding, it does not automatically make the plaintiffs owners of the disputed land. As noted earlier, the law requires that plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their own case and not on the weakness of the defendants’ case, see Odametey v Clocuh (supra) and must prove their root of title or mode of acquisition or various acts of possession over the disputed land, see Yehans International Ltd. v Martey Tsuru Family & Anor. [supra]. 37. In proof of ownership of the disputed land, plaintiffs contended that the 1st defendant surrendered Plot no. 115 in settlement of the judgment debt of GHS26,480.00. They added that it was the chief palace who took copy of the allocation paper, cancelled it and a new one issued in the name of the 2nd plaintiff. The new allocation paper to the 2nd plaintiff, Exhibit C, is dated 22/12/18. This the 1st defendant disputed saying that that could not have been possible since the plaintiffs obtained their judgment in year 2020. 38. Below is what ensued when 2nd plaintiff was cross-examined by 1st defendant: “Q: You stated that I used the land dispute to settle a judgment debt, is that correct? - 14 - A: Yes. Q: Can you tell this court they year I gave you this particular land? A: I cannot remember. Q: Can you tell this court the year you were given judgment? A: I cannot remember. Q: Did I give you the land before or after judgment? A: … Q: After the judgment. In your witness statement you attached a copy of the land document bearing my name, Exhibit B? A: I am the owner of the property so I have full right to attach. Q: The court that gave you judgment started in October 2018, I am putting that to you? A: I cannot tell the date. Q: The document bearing my name for the land is dated 22/2/18, is that not so? A: I cannot remember but what is written there was done by the chief palace. - 15 - … Q: Are you aware that the document you have for the said land is older than the judgment? A: What is written I do not know. … Q: I am putting it to you that your claim that I gave you this land for which you cannot remember is that it never existed that is why you cannot remember? A: Land was allocated by a chief to me, so all the documents is available. It is not necessary to remember the date and time here because I am a financial institution and I have a lot of dates I work with. Q: I am putting it to you that if I gave you this land as settlement of a judgment debt, then the date in the document will be older than the date of the judgment? A: I am unable to answer due to the allocation that was provided by the chief palace. Q: I am putting it to you that I gave you plot no. 63 to settle the judgment debt, but not plot no. 115? A: It is not true. Both plots bear my name and your interest was transferred by the chief palace to me.” - 16 - 39. This court notes how evasive the 2nd plaintiff was with his answers. Nonetheless, this court is clothed with power to have a copy of the judgment or formal decree tendered in evidence, since same is a public document, see also paragraph 729 of the Practice and Procedure in the Trial Courts and Tribunals of Ghana (2nd Edition) where the learned author S. A. Brobbey stated that the court has a discretion suo motu to call or recall any witness. As a result, the court called on the acting Registrar of this Court to tender a copy of the judgment granted the 1st plaintiff in the case Card FNGO v Alhassan Tunteiya. Same was admitted and marked as CW1. Interestingly, the said judgment is dated 18/11/19. 2nd plaintiff during cross-examination answered unequivocally that the land was given to plaintiffs after the judgment. Exhibit C, copy of the new allocation paper bearing the name of the 2nd plaintiff is dated 22/12/18. It is, therefore, clear that the arguments of the 1st defendant outweighs that of the plaintiffs. It is not possible that a transfer was made to the 2nd plaintiff prior to they obtaining its judgment of 18/11/19. Also, the mistake thereof that Exhibit C was issued in the name of the 2nd plaintiff instead of the 1st plaintiff, has no effect. 40. In effect, I hold that the plaintiffs were unable to prove their root of title. They failed to present facts detailing how Plot no. 115, situate at Sahakpaligu North West Residential Area Block B, Savelugu was validly transferred to them, hence an unfavourable ruling shall be entered, see Okudzeto Ablakwa (No. 2) v. Attorney- General & Obetsebi-Lamptey (No. 2) [supra]. Exhibit C is therefore set aside. Issue c 41. Finally, issue c, whether or not plaintiffs or 2nd defendant trespassed onto plot no. 115 situate at Sahakpaligu North West Residential Area Block B, Savelugu? There is no need to determine this issue, since neither the plaintiffs nor the 1st defendant had valid interest in the disputed land. This issue is, therefore, moot. - 17 - CONCLUSION 42. In light of the above, I hereby enter judgment as follows: a. Plaintiffs’ action fails. b. The counterclaim of the 2nd defendant for trespass also fails. c. Exhibit C, the alleged transfer of interest in Plot No. 115, situate at Sahakpaligu North West Residential Area Block B, Savelugu, is set aside. d. Also Exhibit 3, the alleged statutory declaration of the 1st defendant purporting to transfer interest in the said land to 2nd defendant, is set aside. e. Lastly Exhibit 4, the deed of lease registered with the Lands Commission, is also set aside. The Lands Commission to cancel the records of it from its registry. f. No order as to costs. H/W D. ANNAN ESQ. [MAGISTRATE] IAN A. ADAGWINE ESQ., WITH ROSE ANAFO ESQ., HOLDING THE BRIEF OF SHIEKH-ARIF ABDULLAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS SALISU B. ISSUFI ESQ., HOLDING THE BRIEF OF MOHAMMED ALHASSAN ESQ., FOR THE DEFENDANT Reference 1. ss. 11(4), 12(1) & (2) and 13 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) 2. Faibi v State Hotels Corporation [1968] GLR 471 3. In re Ashalley Botwe Lands; Adjetey Agbosu & Ors. v. Kotey & Ors. [2003-2004] SCGLR 420 - 18 - 4. Odametey v Clocuh [1989-90] 1 GLR 14, SC 5. Kodilinye v Odu [1935] 2 WACA 336 6. Osei v Korang [2013] 58 GMJ 1 7. Aryeh & Akakpo v Ayaa Iddrisu [2010] SCGLR 891 at 903 8. Sasu Bamfo v Sintim [2012] 1 SCGLR 136 at 148 9. Sam Jonah v Duodo-Kumi [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 50 10. R v High Court, Accra, Ex parte Aryeetey (Ankra Interested Party) [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 398 11. Sarkodie v Boateng II [1982-83] 1 GLR 715 SC 12. Fosua & Adu Poku v Dufie (Dec’d) v Adu Poku Mensah [2009] SCGLR 310 13. Duah v Yorkwah [1992-1993] 1 GBR 278 CA 14. HFC Bank (Ghana) Ltd. v Abeka Suit No. J4/5/2018 dated 12th June, 2019 15. Kasseke Akoto Dugbartey Sappor & 2 Ors. v Very Rev. Solomon Dugbatey Sappor & 4 Ors. Suit No. J4/46/2020 dated 13th January 2021, SC (unreported) 16. Majolagbe v. Larbi [1959] GLR 190 17. Saanbaye Basilde Kangbere v Alhaji Seidu Mohammed [2012] DLSC 6442 18. George Kwadwo Asante & Anor. v Madam Abena Amponsah & Anor. [2022] DLSC 11677. 19. Amuzu v Oklikah [1997-1998] GLR 89 20. Mary Larley Nunoo v Manase Atagloe, Suit No. J4/7/18 Unreported SC, dated 28/7/20. 21. Okudzeto Ablakwa (No. 2) v. Attorney-General & Obetsebi-Lamptey (No. 2) [2012] 2 SCGLR 845 22. Yehans International Ltd. v Martey Tsuru Family & Anor. [2018] DLSC 2488 23. P. 729 of the Practice and Procedure in the Trial Courts and Tribunals of Ghana (2nd Edition) by S. A. Brobbey - 19 -