Mr and Mrs Ackon Vrs Ackom [2023] GHADC 49 (22 March 2023)

CORAM: HER WORSHIP MRS. ROSEMARY EDITH HAYFORD, SITTING AS MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT COURT “B”, SEKONDI ON 22ND MARCH, 2023 __________________________________________________________________ SUIT NUMBER A1/3/2019 1. MR. KWASI ACKON 2. MRS. NKOKOBIO ACKON BOTH OF H/NO. 117 NGYIRESIA - SEKONDI VRS JOSEPH ACKOM NGYIRESIA - SEKONDI ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………. TIME: 9.53 AM PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT - - PRESENT PRESENT __________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT By an amended writ of summons filed on 29/11/2022, the Plaintiffs claimed against the defendant the following reliefs: 1. A declaration of title to plot number 10 located and situated at Ngyiresia Essipon Mpintsin physical planning scheme measuring 0.43 acre bounded on the North by a vast land, at the West by Plot N0. 9 on the South by plot No. 12 and the East 2. 3. by proposed road. Damages for trespass Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agent, family members, workmen, assign, privies, etc., from having anything to do with the said plot. 4. Recovery of possession of the land in issue Pursuant to the leave of the court granted the Defendant, he filed an amended Statement of Defence on the 11th of March, 2021 wherein he denied all the averments of the Plaintiffs. He did not set up any counter-claim. At the end of the trial, the lawyers were ordered to file their respective addresses. The Plaintiffs’ Counsel filed theirs on 19/1/2023 and the Counsel for the defendant also filed his on 07/02/2023. Both addresses were considered in this judgment. THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS The Plaintiffs are a married couple resident at Ngyiresia. The 1st Plaintiff testified on his own behalf as well as on the behalf of the 2nd Plaintiff. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that they jointly acquired the disputed land from Nana Kwamena Awortwe of the Abankyewa Ebiradze stool family of Ngyiresia sometime in 2007. They were issued a receipt and subsequently, an indenture was prepared for them. A search was conducted before the purchase which indicated that the said land was unencumbered. Plaintiffs aver that sometime in 2016 they noticed the defendant had trespassed onto the land. Upon enquiries, the defendant denied it and said he was merely a workman for the trespasser. It was when the writ was issued that he appeared in court as the person developing the land. It is further their case that the land belongs to their grantors who have always been in control and possession of the land and that they (the grantors) are the original owners of all adjourning plots to the subject matter land. The Plaintiffs say the land does not belong to the defendant. THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT The Defendant on the other hand avers that the disputed land belongs to the Kukudo Abantwa Ebiradze Royal Stool Family, of Ngyeresia. It is the case of the defendant that his predecessors successfully defended court actions affecting the family land including the disputed land and successfully obtained judgments. These include those granted to other individuals that plaintiffs’ grantors sued or attempted to re-claim. Defendant avers that his predecessors took out a Statutory Declaration in respect of the family land sometime in 1997 which included the disputed land. Defendant further avers that there was no caveat from any quarter or from the Plaintiffs’ grantor. Further, it is his family that collects all ground rent in respect of Ngyeresia lands including the disputed land. Defendant avers that the name of Plaintiffs’ grantor does not exist in any quarters and that they cannot pass any proper title in the disputed land to the Plaintiffs. Defendant accuses the Plaintiffs’ grantor of perpetuating fraud by making a grant of the disputed land when they knew or ought to have known that the disputed land did not belong to them and going ahead with the grant to the plaintiffs when there were sufficient archival documents as well as judgment determining that the disputed land and others belong to the defendant’s grantor. It is the case of the defendant that he has not trespassed on the disputed land and that he validly obtained same from the Kukudo Abantwa Ebiradze Royal Stool family sometime in 2011 when it was a complete forest. He cleared the land and for 5 years he cultivated cassava on the land without any confrontation from any quarters and he subsequently started his construction in 2015. It was in 2018 when the Plaintiffs showed up to make adverse claims to the disputed land. Defendant contends that the writ is frivolous and vexatious. Both parties called their grantors in support of their respective cases. The issues for determination by the court at the close of pleadings were: 1. Whether or not the disputed land belongs to the Plaintiffs’ or defendant’s grantor 2. Whether or not the Plaintiffs are entitled to their claim BURDEN OF PROOF The standard burden and persuasion of proof in civil matters including land are captured under sections 11(4) and 12(1) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323). The relevant provisions provide: “11(4) In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence…. 12(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities.” In land matters, the person asserting title must prove his root of title strictly, among others. In the case of Mondial Veneer (Gh) Ltd v Amuah Gyebu XV (2011) SCGLR 466 at page 468 (holding 4), the Supreme Court held that: "In land litigation, even where living witnesses involved in the transaction, had been produced in court as witnesses, the law would require the person asserting title and on who bore the burden of persuasion... to prove the root of title, mode of acquisition and various acts of possession exercised over the disputed land. It is only where the party had succeeded in establishing those facts, on the balance of probabilities, that the party would be entitled to the claim" In Deliman Oil Company Ltd v HFC Bank Ghana Limited (2016) 92 G. M. J. 1, the Court of Appeal, sitting in Tamale, in its judgment delivered by Ackah-Yensu JA at page 8 said the following: "Title is the means by which a person establishes his right to land. A person's title indicates by what means he claims to be the owner of land. Title to land may take the form of possession or it may take the form of a document or a series of documents…” ANALYSIS AND DECISION OF THE COURT The Plaintiffs in proving their case stated that they purchased the disputed land from their grantors represented then by Nana Kwamena Awortwe of Abankyewa Ebiradze Stool Family of Ngyiresia, Sekondi in 2007. Plaintiff tendered Exhibit “A” evidencing the said purchase. Exhibit “A” is an official receipt dated 02-02-07 in the name of Robert Mandoh for a consideration of seven million cedis (old Ghana cedis). Robert Mandoh is another name of the Plaintiff. After the purchase, the Plaintiffs said they conducted a search and the said land was unencumbered. Subsequently, an indenture was executed for them. Plaintiffs tendered Exhibit “B” the said indenture. On Exhibit ‘B’, it was executed on the 2nd of June 2007 and it was between Nana Kwamena Awortwe, Regent of Ebiradze Royal Stool of Ngyiresia with the consent and concurrence of principal members of the said stool on the one part and the Plaintiffs herein on the other part for 99 years. An appraisal of Exhibit ‘B’ shows clearly that the same has been stamped and registered with the Lands Commission in 2007. PW1, Emmanuel Kweku Ackon, the acting Regent of Abankyewa Ebiradze stool family of Ngyiresia represented the grantors of the Plaintiffs. He confirmed that the stool sold the disputed land to the Plaintiffs in 2007 and that the said land which has always been under their control and possession forms part of the Abankyewa Ebiradze Stool Family of Ngyiresia stool lands. PW1 avers that it was his ancestors that first settled on the land described as Ngyiresia Stool Land of which the disputed land forms part. His family, then represented by the Regent Nana Kwamena Awortwe II is in charge of all the Abankyewa Ebiradze stool family of Ngyiresia stool lands and same recognized by the Lands Commission. PW1 tendered Exhibit ‘E’, a letter (search) from Lands Commission that was conducted by the counsel of the Plaintiffs. In the said Exhibit ‘E’, the lessor is Nana Kwamena Awortwe who from the evidence gathered during the trial was referred to as Regent and not the substantive chief. However, in the said Exhibit ‘E’ from Lands Commission, he was described as the chief of the Ebiradze Royal Stool of Ngyiresia. Under cross- examination of PW1 on the 5th of August 2021 the following ensued: “Q. When did Nana Kwamena Awortwo II die A. December 2020 Q. You will agree with me that prior to the death he was the Regent of the stool of Ngyeresia A. That is correct Q. You will again agree with me that in that capacity as the Regent he was being challenged at the Traditional Council A. That is correct but I have an explanation. A letter came from the Traditional Council that one Bossman was challenging the Regent’s capacity of Nana Awortwe II that nobody had installed him as the Regent of Ngyeresia. We honoured the letter by going to the council but they said the person who brought the matter had failed to turn up so we should leave. Q. I am putting it to you that the explanation you just gave is a palpable falsehood A. It’s the whole truth Q. In his lifetime, Nana Kwamena Awortwe II was never enstooled as a chief A. That is correct he was never installed as a chief but the Abankyewa family installed him as a Regent. Q. Kindly look at Exhibit E, in Exhibit E Nana Kwamena is described as the chief, is that correct A. That is what is stated in the Exhibit Q. I am suggesting to you that Exhibit E was procured by fraud be describing the person as a chief A. (Witness take a long time to answer) It is true “ It must be noted that the said Exhibit ‘E’ is not emanating from PW1 himself. It is from Lands Commission on their letterhead addressed to the 2nd Plaintiff. It is in respect of the disputed land and it was signed by the Snr. Lands Administrative Officer (Innocent Achina) for the Regional Lands Officer. It was not the Plaintiffs that wrote the said letter therefore any misdescription of Nana Awortwe as a chief of Ebiradze Royal Stool of Ngyiresia and not Regent cannot be laid on the doorstep of the Plaintiff. Again, it does not take away the fact that the search result shows that the disputed land is a subject matter lease between Nana Awortwi and the Plaintiffs for a term of 99 years. I take judicial notice that any Regent of a stool in our local parlance is referred to as a chief in any case and by the line of questioning by counsel, he identifies that Nana Awortwe is a Regent, a caretaker chief. It is my humble view that Lands Commission referring to Nana Awortwi as a chief is only a misdescription. It does not take away the import of the search. It is noteworthy that in Exbibit “B”, (the indenture) that was emanating from the family of PWI, Nana Kwamina Awortwe was described as the Regent, and as must be noted, it is trite that a Regent performs the role of a chief until a substantive one is installed. It does not invalidate any document executed on behalf of his principal elders on one part and the Plaintiffs on the other part. Defendant suggested under cross-examination that the capacity of the said Nana Kwamena Awortwe had been challenged at the Essikado Traditional Council. PW1 stated that they were asked to leave the Essikado Traditional Council since the person who challenged the capacity failed to pursue the case. It is my humble view that that is not an issue before this court and therefore I shall refrain from commenting on same, save to say that prima facie Exhibit ‘E’ indicates that the disputed land is the subject matter of the lease dated 2nd June 2007 between Nana Kwamina Awortwe and the Plaintiffs. The question that begs for an answer is that, would the registration of the Plaintiffs’ document have gone through and not been truncated if the land had been encumbered? There is no evidence before this court that Defendant led evidence to suggest that he did due diligence including searches and found or did not find the land encumbered. If Defendant had done so he would have known that the land was encumbered. I find Exhibit “E” a credible document. The last response of PW1 above might seem to have damaged the Plaintiff’s case. But it did not go the whole hog. I so find. To further strengthen their point that it is the family of the Plaintiffs’ grantors that is recognized by the Essikado Traditional Council under which the stool of Ngyiresia and for that matter the disputed land falls, PW1 tendered Exhibit ‘C’. This is a letter from the Essikado Traditional Council. It was authored by the Ag. Registrar Emmanuel A. Arthur. As it must be noted the Registrar is normally the mouthpiece of the Traditional Council. It is dated 22/4/2021 and signed by the acting Registrar. Defendant seems to suggest that Exhibit ‘C’ might not be genuine because of the Ref. No. EIC/034/Vol./17. I must say that the fact that the Reference Number ends with “17 “and the date is 2021 is not sufficient to discredit same. To my mind, there is no laid down rule as to how Reference Numbers are couched and every organization decides how they come out with their Reference Numbers. It is also my humble view that, it would not be fatal in the given circumstances that the said letter only came into existence after the writ was issued, I believe it is the content of the said letter that matters. From this said letter from the Essikado Traditional Council under which Ngyiresia Stool Lands fall, at paragraph 1 of the said letter, it is stated that “I. Abankyewa Ebiradze Royal Stool Family of Ngyiresia is represented and is a member of the Essikado Traditional Council” To my mind, it is the Traditional Council that knows its members. It might be recalled that it was even stated earlier that the capacity of Nana Kwamena Awortwe as Regent was being challenged at the same Traditional Council The said letter further indicated that “Kokodo Abantwa Ebiradze is not known to the Traditional Council and has never had any representation or membership of Essikado Traditional Council.” PW1 in his evidence stated that royalties from their land are taken from the Traditional Council. This evidence is confirmed by Exhibit ‘C’ paragraph 3 which states as follows: “3. Royalties in respect of land situated in Ngyiresia are solely paid to the Abankyewa Ebiradze Family.” I do not doubt the credibility of Exhibit C’ as the search result from the Essikado Traditional Council. It must be noted that it is not a document regarding or conveying land which is required to be stamped under Sections 19 and 32 of the Stamp Duty Act 2005, Act 689. It is only seeking to confirm a piece of information and therefore, it is my humble view that the fact that it is not stamped does not lose its value. Defendant does not bring anything to the contrary. The same applies to Exhibit “D”. This is a letter from the office of the Administrator of Stool Lands dated April 2021 with reference No. OASL/WR/C. I/Vol and signed by the Regional Stool Lands Officer, Ruth Monica Paintsil, on the letterhead of the office of the Administrator of Stool Lands. At paragraph 2 of the said letter, it stated as follows: “This office builds its database from leases that have been duly registered by Lands Commission and the record indicates that the transaction on the land in question was between Nana Kwamena Awortwe, Regent of Ngyiresia and Mr. Kwesi Ackon and Mrs N. Ackon and this has been the basis for our engagement with the stool of Ngyiresia.” The Administrator of Stool Lands is the recognized body that deals with stool lands not families. They deal with the Traditional Authorities and they administer stool lands. Just as they explained in Exhibit ‘D’, they get the information from Lands Commission based on which they issue demand notices to occupants of the lands and later disburse the monies received through the Traditional leaders. I have taken notice of the receipts Exhibit ‘9’ tendered by Defendant, and it is rather confusing. Even though Defendant indicates that the Head of Family is Kwaku Amo to whom the payments were made, Exhibits 9, 9a, and 9c state Francis Eshun as the Ebusuapanyin, the Defendant does not give any explanation why the names change from Kwaku Amo to Francis Eshun. On the analysis, I find Exhibit D, the letter from the Administrative of Stool Lands reliable. The Defendant, on the other hand, testified that the land in dispute belongs to him having obtained same in 2011 from his family the Abantwa Ebiradze Royal Stool family through his Uncle DW1. Defendant says that the disputed land belongs to his said family who has been in possession of same. Defendant further says he was not given any document in respect of the disputed land. DW1 under cross-examination indicated that in the family when land is given to a family member, no documents are given to them. It is the evidence of DW1 that his family broke the virgin forest of Ngyiresia Lands and they have also been in possession of same and that their ownership of the disputed land was even confirmed through judgments. Indeed, under cross- examination of the 2nd Plaintiff below is what transpired: “Q. I am suggesting to you that the disputed land does not belong to the Abankyewa Ebiradze Family as suggested in paragraph 3 of your witness statement. A. It is for them. xxx Q. I am further suggesting to you that the fact of the ownership of this disputed land was confirmed in the judgment of the native court in 1949. (Emphasis mine) A. That time I was not born so I know nothing about it.” The said judgment was tendered through DW1 as Exhibit “3”. I have perused the said judgment cover to cover and nowhere does it talk about Ngyiresia lands. It was rather Fijai Lands that were in issue and not Ngyiresia Lands, these are two different lands in my humble view. A look at the first relief that was sought then in the 1949 judgment is as follows: “1. Plaintiffs claim from the Defendants jointly and severally for a declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land commonly known and called Fijai stool lands and situate and being at Fijai and bounded on one side by Anaji shewn …..” Indeed, what DW1 himself stated at paragraph 8 of his witness statement is very instructive, I quote same below: “8. The stool of Fijai and Ngyiresia as thus sister stools and there is an affidavit sworn to this fact by Nana Odikro Kobina Nketsiah of Ngyiresia in 1942 and I wish to tender it as Exhibit “2”. He took out the affidavit when he stepped in to settle a suit involving members of the Fijai stool. (emphasis mine) I also want to tender a copy of the judgment as Exhibit 3.” Clearly, from the witness’ own evidence, the dispute had nothing to do with Ngyiresia Stool or its Lands, let alone the disputed land. Besides, there is nothing in that Exhibit 3 that suggests that the sister stool inherit each other. I find that the judgment Exhibit 3 has nothing to do with Ngyiresia Lands nor the disputed land. It is further the case of the Defendant that the grantors of the Plaintiffs had granted their lands to other persons and they had successfully recovered same. DW1 tendered Exhibits ‘6’ and ‘7 ‘as proof. I must say that a careful perusal of those two judgments does not support the averment of DW1 at all. For example, in respect of Exhibit 6, Defendant had averred further that his Ebusuapanyin successfully recovered a piece of land from one Vivian Daniels who had received her grant from the grantors of the Plaintiffs. Analysis of the said Exhibit “6” does not indicate who the grantors of the said Vivian Daniels (the Defendant therein) were. This is so because Exhibit 6 was a default judgment where the court clearly indicated as following: “BY COURT As the records show the Defendant has been fully served. Her refusal to file a defence could mean she has no defence to the claim. I, therefore, proceed to enter judgment against the defendant. Damages to be assessed later. Suit is adjourned sine die”. Attached to this is a ruling that sought to set aside the default judgment but was unsuccessful. Therefore, even though Defendant’s grantors had judgment in that case, nothing in that judgment shows that it was Plaintiff’s grantor that granted the land therein to Defendant therein. Again, nothing shows that the land in dispute therein is the same as the land in dispute herein. The same analysis would apply to Exhibit “7”, the suit filed by Lawyer Ben Ackaah- Gyasi against one Mr. Abraham – the lands are not the same, whereas the land therein was Plot No. S.25, the land herein is Plot No. 10. Neither could it be proved that it was the Plaintiffs’ grantor that leased out the land therein to Defendant therein. Again, Plaintiffs herein were also not a party to any of the cases mentioned in Exhibits 3, 6 and 7 including all the judgments exhibited. None of the judgments also had any site plan attached to have shown that they were the same land. It is the view of the court that unless Defendant can show that those judgments operated as estoppel res judicatem, which would have bound the Plaintiffs from laying claims to the disputed land, I fail to see the relevance of the said exhibits in respect of this particular case. DW1 in his evidence stated that when the land was given to the Defendant, no document was given to him. Yet he tendered Exhibit 4 as the site plan of the area. It must be noted this site plan is not dated nor was it signed by the Regional licensed surveyor as mandated by law. It did not help the court in any way to resolve the issue. Defendant further avers that his late uncle made out a statutory declaration that affects their family lands and includes the disputed land. Exhibit “8” was tendered. This is a Daily Graphic publication of 1997 in respect of Ngyiresia Stool Lands, Sekondi. Sir Dennis Adjei in his book “Land Law, Practice and Conveyancing in Ghana, 2nd Edition stated at page 208 stated that, “A statutory declaration is used to make a declaration of fact such as an affidavit, not meant to be used in court proceedings. Statutory declarations are used as evidence of an interest in land and do not constitute an instrument affecting the transfer of an interest in land”. It is trite that in an action for declaration of title to land, a statutory declaration by itself does not confer title on the declarant. A party relying on a statutory declaration in an action for title to land is required to lead credible and admissible evidence to prove the acts of ownership and possession referred to in the declaration. See (Agbosu v Kotey 2003-2004) SCGLR 423. I have already demonstrated how the reliance on the judgments tendered by the Defendant did not prove their ownership of the land in dispute, even though the Defendant indicated under cross-examination and in their address that the said Statutory Declaration has been registered with the Lands Commission unfortunately, I do not see any evidence of same. I say so because, this Statutory Declaration was taken in 1997 and it was not known when it was registered with Lands, assuming the same was even registered with Lands Commission in 1997, the Plaintiffs only registered their interest in the disputed land in 2007, ten years afterwards. To my mind, if it is true that Defendants had registered their interest, the registration of that of the Plaintiffs would not have gone through at the Lands commission, it would have indicated that the land was already encumbered, however, nothing of the sort was flagged and that was why the Plaintiffs were able to register the disputed land granted to them by their grantors. Again, by the said registration, it gave the Plaintiffs the legal right of a registered proprietor of a parcel of land which is indefeasible and shall be held by him together with the rights and privileges attached to the parcel of land free from all other interests and claims only subject to the interests or other encumbrances. See Section 119 of the Land Act, 2020, Act 1036. But in this case, there were no encumbrances at the time of the Registration by the Plaintiffs. It is the Defendant’s case that he has been in physical possession since 2011 and there have not been hindrances. It must be noted however that, at the time Defendant claims to have been in possession of the disputed land 2011, the Plaintiffs had already acquired same in 2007, four years earlier and therefore Defendant cannot lay claims to same. It is my humble view further that Defendant cannot also claim adverse possession even though he claims he has been in possession of the land since 2011. The period is less than the 12-year limitation period provided by law. I so hold. I wish to touch on the issue of fraud that was particularized by Defendant. At paragraph 5 of Defendant’s amended statement of defence filed on 11/3/2021, he stated the following: “5. Paragraph 3 and 4 of the statement of claim are denied and the Defendant repeat paragraph 4 supra in denial and further contend that the disputed land does not belong to the Plaintiffs’ grantor and the said grant is fraudulent. Particulars of Fraud a. Making grant of the disputed land to the Plaintiffs when the grantor knew or ought to known that it did not belong to him. b. Going ahead with the grant to the Plaintiffs when there was sufficient archival documents as well as Judgments determining that the disputed land and others belong to the Defendant’s grantor.” Sir Dennis Adjei in his book “Land Law, Practice and Conveyancing in Ghana, 2nd Edition stated at page 147 stated that “The law is now settled that the burden of proof in civil matters is proof by a preponderance of the probabilities. The burden of proof in criminal matters is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Any burden of proof is contrary to the two above is void. Therefore, where a party alleges any criminal conduct such as fraud and forgery against another party in a land matter, he shall be required to prove the allegation of criminal conduct on the standard burden of proof in criminal matters, that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and in the case of the civil aspect, he shall prove same by a preponderance of the probabilities. Even though it is one land matter, both burdens of proof shall be used by virtue of the allegation of fraud or forgery made against the opponent. The standard burden of proof in criminal matters shall be used to resolve the criminal acts only and cannot be used in a civil matter where no allegation of fraud, forgery or other crime is made.” I have earlier in this judgment determined that all the judgments tendered by Defendant in proof that the disputed land belongs to Defendant did not support his assertion. (See pages 12 – 15 of this judgment). It must be noted that the grantors of the Plaintiffs were not parties to any of these judgments that Defendant rely upon. If Defendant had established by the said judgments that the Plaintiff’s grantor were parties and that judgment had been given in their favour and that they still went ahead and gave same to the Plaintiffs, then it could have been said that the grantors of Plaintiff had perpetuated fraud on them. In this case, however, nothing of the sort was established. It is my considered view that the particulars are incapable of establishing fraud I so find and so hold. Having critically analyzed the totality of the facts and evidence, and on the preponderance of the probabilities, it is my humble view that the Plaintiffs’ action must succeed having led cogent evidence in support of their claim. I therefore hold that the disputed land belongs to the grantors of the Plaintiff from where the Plaintiffs also assumed their interest. In the circumtances, the Plaintiffs are entitled to their claims. The court summarizes its judgement in conclusion as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs succeed in their action for declaration of title to plot number 10 located and situated at Ngyiresia Essipon Mpintsin physical planning scheme measuring 0.43 acre bounded on the North by a vast land, at the West by Plot N0. 9 on the South by plot No. 12 and the East by proposed road and for 2. Recovery of possession of the land in issue; 3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agent, family members, workmen, assign, privies, etc., from having anything to do with the said plot. Finally, the Plaintiff asked for Damages for trespass. In the Supreme court case of Delmas Agency Ghana Ltd. v Food Distributors International Ltd 2007- 2008 SCGLR 748 on the award of general damages the court held that “Generally, damages is such as the law will presume to be the natural or probable consequences of the defendant’s act. It arises by inference of the law and therefore need not be proved by evidence. The law implies general damages in every infringement of an absolute right. The catch is that only normal damages are awarded. On the whole I will award an amount of GH₵5,000.00 general damages. I further award cost of GH₵5,000.00 in favour of the Plaintiffs (SGD) H/W ROSEMARY EDITH HAYFORD (MRS.) MAGISTRATE COUNSEL APPIAH ESSUAMAH FOR ERICKSON ABAKAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS EMMANUEL ARTHUR FOR THE DEFENDANTS 18