Dame and Another Vrs Baidoo and Others [2023] GHAHC 124 (28 July 2023)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HELD IN CAPE COAST ON 28TH JULY, 2023 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE EMMANUEL ATSU LODOH E1/03/2020 PLAINTIFF (S) 1. EBU. NANA KOJO DAME H/NO. WT 148, WONYATU 2. EBU. KWAME ANNAN AMOAH H/NO. 4B, WONYATU AND 1. JOSEPH BAIDOO DEFENDANT(S) WONYATU, CAPE COAST 2. EDWARD TUEDOR ANKAFUL JUNCTION, CAPE COAST 3. UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF GHANA (UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST BRANCH) PER ITS PRESIDENT, CAPE COAST 4. CHARLES ATO BARTELS 1 of 39 CAPE COAST Introduction JUDGEMENT This action is essentially a land matter touching on the determination of the rights of the parties over the disputed land. The Plaintiffs on 30th July, 2019 took out a Writ of Summons against the first three Defendants. Subsequently, following a series of amendments and joinders, the Writ of Summons was plagued with its final amendment to include the 4th Defendant and same was filed on 3rd September, 2020. Action Thus per the writ of summons filed on 3rd September, 2020, the Plaintiffs claimed the following reliefs against the defendants: 1. A declaration of Court to the effect that the land lying and being on the Cape Coast-Jukwa Road on the right hand side from Cape Coast, which land is known and called Wonyatu and bounded on the West by the Cape Coast Jukwa Road, on the East by Tayirdo and Nyamebekyere, on the South by Yayaakoano and on the North by Cape Coast Quarry, which land is in a total acreage of 37.51 more or less is the property of the Plaintiffs Nana Kobena Dame Anona Family of Wonyatu near Efutu, Cape Coast, which land its virginity was broken by the ancestral figure of the Plaintiffs by name of Nana Kobena Dame. 2. An order of Court for a declaration to the effect that any purported land transaction between the 1st and 2nd Defendants as agents for the 4th Defendant and by extension including the 4th Defendant on one part, and the 3rd Defendant on the other part is null and void or a nullity as the 4th Defendant has 2 of 39 no property or beneficial interest in the land which virgin forest has been broken by the Plaintiffs ancestral figure Nana Kobena Dame and to Plaintiffs knowledge, Plaintiffs ancestors has not conveyed any land to the 4th Defendant. 3. An order of Court directed at the Land commission secretariat, Cape Coast to expunge from their records any purported document in respect of the subject matter land registered by the 4th Defendant with the Commission. 4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 3rd and 4th Defendants, their agents, privies, servants, servants, workmen and all persons claiming through or in trust for them from having anything to do with the land the subject matter of this litigation. 5. Cost incidental to the action including legal fees. Settlement Agreement During the pre-trial proceedings, the Plaintiffs brokered a settlement with the 3rd Defendant. The settlement agreement was filed on 16th November, 2020, following which the court adopted the said terms of settlement and entered same as consent judgment between the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant on 16th November, 2020. The legal effect of the consent judgment therefore is the issues between the plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant is rendered moot and will therefore not be determined. Reservations of 4th Defendant over Consent Judgment The 4th Defendant’s attorney at paragraph 6 to 8 of her witness statement stated as follows: 6. I must testify that upon legal advice from my Lawyers which advice I believe in, my Bartels family as the Vendor of the disputed land is no longer the owners of the disputed land as per several documents to be 3 of 39 tendered to the Court makes the 3rd Defendant the legal owners in possession and occupation of the disputed land. 7. My attention has been drawn to a Terms of Settlement Agreement dated and executed on 19th day of October 2020 made between the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs on one hand and the 3rd Defendant on the other hand, which was filed on 16th November 2020 and attested to by the Lawyers of the respective parties, a copy of which is attached as EXHIBIT B3' to be tendered. 8. The said Agreement in Exhibit B3 has been made in a very bad taste and I have instructed my Lawyer to take legal steps to set it aside on the basis, inter alia, that no Court has set aside or invalidated any of contract of sale and the Deed of Conveyance transferring title of the disputed land to the 3rd Defendant which completely divest my Bartels family through the 4th Defendant of all and any interest in the disputed land. Simply put, the Bartels family no longer owns the disputed lad [sic] sold tot eh [sic] 3rd Defendant except the portions not included in the sale to the 3rd Defendant. It is unclear to the court why the 4th Defendant, on the purported advice of her counsel arrived at this patently erroneous factual and legal position. Firstly, in paragraph 8 of the witness statement of his attorney 4th defendant claims that portions of the disputed land had not been alienated to the 3rd Defendant. This to all intent and purposes means that title to the unsold portions remains a subject matter for determination by the court and therefore not impacted by the terms of settlement between plaintiffs and 3rd 4 of 39 defendant. It cannot be the case as claimed therefore that they are no longer owners of the disputed land. Secondly, a causal reading of the terms of settlement will disclose that the terms of settlement did not confer title in the disputed land on the Plaintiffs or declared invalid the contract of sale between the 4th Defendant and the 3rd Defendant. To my mind therefore the terms of settlement were only valid to the extent that it only seeks an arrangement to compromise the outcome of the judgment in the event that the plaintiff succeeds in its case against the 3rd defendant only. Given my understanding of the legal effect of the consent judgment, and without the benefit of the real reasons why the 4th defendant attorney describes the consent judgment as in bad taste, I am unable to ascribe to the 4th Defendant’s opinions in respect of the legal effect of the consent judgment. For the avoidance of doubt, I will reproduce in extensor the details of the said consent judgment between the Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant. 1. The Plaintiff shall discontinue the instant suit against the 3rd Defendant forthwith. 2. The 3rd Defendant shall attorn tenancy to the Plaintiff in the event that title to the disputed land is declared in their favour. Accordingly, the transactions between the Defendants may not be declared nor deemed void and the Plaintiff shall take due steps to perfect the Defendant’s title. 3. The Plaintiff’s shall substitute their relief “2” in their Amended Writ of Summons for a full refund of the consideration paid by the 5 of 39 3rd defendant to the 4th Defendant together with interest at the prevailing commercial rate; and 4. These Terms of Settlement shall be adopted by the Court as Consent Judgment in full satisfaction and discharge of the Plaintiff’s claim against the 3rd Defendant in the instant case. The record will however show that the Plaintiffs did not even amend their reliefs to capture point 3 of the consent judgment. Brief Case of the Plaintiff The case of the plaintiffs is set out in their Amended Statement of Claim filed on 3rd September, 2020. The 1st Plaintiff says he is the head of family of the Nana Kobena Dame Anona family of Wonyatu near Efutu in the Cape Coast Metropolis while the 2nd Plaintiff is the Ebusuabaatan of the Nana Kobena Dame Anona family. They contend that their family are the original dwellers on the disputed property having been in occupation and habitation of same since its virgin state over a century ago The Plaintiff further claims that the 1st Defendant is a brother of the Plaintiffs and secretary and member of the Nana Kobena Dame Anona family of Wonyatu. The Plaintiff again claims that the 2nd Defendant is the owner of a Restaurant at Ankaful Junction and doubles as contractor and an estate agent. Finally the Plaintiff describes the 4th Defendant as a person claiming to hold 46.23 acres of land at Wonyatu over which it has registered a Statutory Declaration dated 17th November, 1977 with registration No. CCT1452/77. Regarding the disputed property the Plaintiffs say that their ancestor Nana Kobena Dame broke the virgin forest and since then his family had remained in undisturbed 6 of 39 possession of same for well over a century. In respect of what triggered the action the plaintiff state in paragraphs 8 to 13 and 15 of his amended statement of claim as follows: 8. The 4th Defendant in his recital in his Statutory Declaration declares that the Bartels Family has beneficiary interest in the subject matter land. 9. Per a contract of sale executed between the 4th Defendant and the 3rd Defendant, the 4th Defendant purports to have leased and conveyed a plot of size of 16.17 hectors (approximately 120 plots) to the 3rd Defendant. In the transaction between the 4th and the 3rd Defendants, 1st and 2nd Defendant styling himself at all material times as the Acting Head of the Nana Kobena DameAnona Family of Wonyatu as if there was no substantive Head or Ebusuapanyin. 11. Plaintiffs say they have not sighted the purported Deed of Conveyance which have been the basis of the 4th Defendant's claim of having a beneficiary interest in their ancestral land. 12. Plaintiffs say their land acquisition and possession by the breaking the virginity of the land, supersedes any other rival claim by any rival claimant and so the 4thDefendant's claim is second-hand to their first- hand claim 13. Plaintiffs say that to the best of their knowledge and recollection from memory the 4th defendant, Charles Ato Bartels at a point in time became a Christian friend of their maternal uncle who was then the Head of Family in the person of Ebusuapanyin Kofi Fynn (deceased) who upon request by the 4th Defendant for land to cultivate orange fruit plantation, gave the 4th Defendant some three (3) acre land for the cultivation of his intended 7 of 39 orange fruit plantation, which plantation is still feasible with some portion overwhelmed by bushes. 15. Plaintiffs say it was the clandestine deals by the 1st and 2nd Defendant on the land which have prompted them to know about the dealings with the land by the 4th Defendant at their blind side. . Case of the 1st and 2nd Defendant The 1st and 2nd Defendant filed a joint defence. Their amended pleadings in this direction are contained in their Amended Statement of Defence filed on 17th February, 2021. They admitted that the Plaintiffs are members their maternal family, but denied the respective capacities of the Plaintiff as described in their pleadings. They also disputed the antecedents of Plaintiffs claim over the disputed land and averred that the disputed land is the bona fide property of Mrs Agnes Bartels (nee Mensah) by virtue of a Deed of Conveyance Numbered 1261/1903 and registered as No. 165 in 1904 at Cape Coast. The 1st and 2nd Defendant further averred that the children of the said Mrs Agnes Bartels were vested with the disputed land and accordingly same was plotted at the Land Commission in their names in a Statutory Declaration dated 17th November, 1977 with registration number CCT 1452/77. The 1st and 2nd Defendant also averred in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of their pleadings as follows: 8. The 1st and 2nd Defendants say that the successors and heirs of the children of Agnes Bartels who are popularly known as the Bartels Family of Cape Coast approached the 2nd Defendants to find a Vendor for the disputed land. 8 of 39 9. The 2nd Defendant says that he was able to secure a deal for the 3rd Defendant to purchase portions of the disputed land and that was about all. 10. That 1st and 2nd Defendants say that the proper persons to be sued are the Bartels Family of Cape Coast and not them. 11. The 1st and 2nd Defendants states that a Search Report on the disputed land indicates that it is covered by the above mentioned Statutory Declaration by Charles Bartels and others. 12. The 1st and 2nd Defendants say that the disputed land never belonged to the Plaintiff's family as claimed since they are persons who later migrated to settle on portions of the disputed land after the conveyance to Mrs. Agnes Bartels. Case of the 4th Defendant The case of the 4th Defendant was pleaded in their Amended Statement of Defence filed on 17th February, 2021. They essentially denied the Plaintiffs claim over the disputed land and further disputed their root of title. The 4th Defendant averred that the village of Wonyatu never had a unit family but was a settler community. The 4th Defendant averred that the Bartels family were the owners of the disputed land and asserted ownership over the lands they described in paragraph 5 of their pleadings as “all that piece and parcel of land situate and laying at Yayakwanu together with the villages of Mayankrom Wenyatu off the Cape Coast to Twifo Praso Highway covering an approximate area of 46.23 acres. The 4th Defendant traced her root of title from the acquisition of the disputed land by his late grandfather by name John Peter Mensah from William Hutton Makourne. The 4th Defendant further averred in paragraph 7, 8 9, 14 and 15 incidents of his root of title as follows: 9 of 39 7. The acquisition was reduced into an indenture between John Peter Mensah and William Hutton Makronne dated 9th April, 1902. 8. The 4th Defendant's Grandfather John Peter Mensah subsequently executed a Deed of Gift in favour of his infant daughter Agnes Mensah, to be held in trust for her by Akosua Appiawa, wife and Kofi Ninfa, his brother-in-law. 9. John Peter Mensah before his death took possession of the land and placed some of the ancestors of the Plaintiffs on the land as Caretakers including the 1st Defendant who happens to be the brother of the Plaintiff in this matter. 14. The 4th Defendant avers that his Bartels Family considered it fit and proper to assert its legal claim and title to the land by a Statutory Declaration of title dated 17th November 1977 measuring 46.23 acres by the Principal Members of the family which has been duly registered at the Lands Commission, Cape Coast, Central Region as No. CCT 1452/77 and stamped at the Land Registry. 15. The said Statutory Declaration traces the roof of title of the Bartels Family to Mrs Agnes Bartels, nee Mensah through a Deed of Conveyance No. 1261/1903 and registered as No. 165 in 1904. The 4th Defendant also pleaded that Bartel’s family gifted portions of the disputed land to the plaintiffs and are accordingly, estopped form asserting ownership of the land. The 4th Defendant finally pleaded limitation of statutes because their family had been in undisturbed possession of the disputed land for over One hundred years. The Defendants therefore prayed for the case of the Plaintiff to be dismissed. Issues for Determination 10 of 39 On 16th November, 2020 the court set down the issues contained in the Application for Directions filed on 17th July, 2020 and the Notice of Additional issues filed on 28th April, 2020 as the issues for trial. The issues are: Application for Directions 1. Whether or not the disputed land was founded by Plaintiffs ancestors? 2. Whether or not Plaintiffs family have possessed and occupied the disputed land for over 190 years? 3. Whether or not Plaintiffs family title to the disputed land has been challenged in any fora by the 4th Defendant's family? 4. Whether or not 4th Defendant's family have gifted 5 acres portion of disputed land to the Plaintiffs' family? 5. Whether or not 4th Defendant's ancestor i.e. John Peter Mensah placed some of the ancestors of the Plaintiffs on the disputed land as care-takers? 6. Whether or not 4th Defendant's family have been in undisturbed possession of the disputed land since 1902. 7. Whether or not William Hulton Makournne validly acquired the disputed land before alienating same to the 4th Defendant’s ancestors, John Peter Mensah? 8. Any other issues (s) that may arise out of the pleadings or trial. Additional Issues 1. Whether or not the Plaintiff's action is barred by the Limitations Act. 1972 (NRCD 54). 2. Whether or not the 4th Defendant's Bartels Family had a valid and legal title to the disputed land by virtue of the Statutory Declaration dated 17th November, 1977 and registered at the Lands Commission as No. CCT 1452/77. 11 of 39 3. Whether or not the 4th Defendant's Bartels family had valid and legal title prior to the sale of the disputed land to the University Teachers Association of Ghana (University of Cape Coast Branch, Cape Coast per its President and Secretary). 4. Whether or not the Plaintiff can maintain the action against the 3rd Defendant as endorsed on the Writ as "THE PRESIDENT UTAG, UCC, CAPE COAST”. 5. Whether or not Plaintiff has any legal title or any equitable interest in the disputed land. 6. Whether or not the Plaintiffs are estopped by their conduct from laying claim to the disputed land. The Trial The 2nd Plaintiff testified during the trial. He called three (3) witnesses. These were Abudu Dramani (PW1); George Odoom (PW2) and Ibrahim Forson (PW3) who all relied on their witness statement filed on 18th December, 2020. The 1st Defendant, notwithstanding multiple adjournments failed to attend court to testify. It is worthy to note that his lawyer at a point during the trial expressed his frustration on the conduct of 1st Defendant and consequently filed a notice to withdraw his representation of the 1st Defendant. The 2nd Defendant also testified and relied on his witness statement filed on 12th January, 2021. 12 of 39 The 4th Defendant testified through his attorney in the person of Carlien Bartels- Melamu. She relied on her witness statement filed on 21st May, 2021. The 4th Defendant called Ekow Mensah (DW1) to testify in support of his case. He also relied on his witness statement filed on 21st May, 2021. Court Expert During the proceedings the court, with the agreement of the parties appointed the Regional Lands Commission, Cape Coast to conduct to conduct an inspection in respect of the disputed land and respond to question presented in the respective survey instructions filed by both parties. On 19th June, 2023, Joseph Haizel of the Survey and Mapping Divison of the Regional Lands Commission, Cape Coast attended court to testify about his finding in respect of the disputed land. He tendered the Report and composite plan which was marked as Exhibit “CE 1”. Issue 1 Whether or not the Plaintiff's action is barred by the Limitations Act 1972 (NRCD 54) One of the issues set down for trial is whether or not the plaintiff’s action is statute barred by operation of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1972 (NRCD 54). The defence of limitation was pleaded by the 4th Defendant in paragraph 21 of his amended statement of defence. Accordingly since this issue is dispositive of the case, I am of the considered view that same ought to be considered first. From the pleadings it is deducible that the plaintiffs’ action is essentially a cause of action for the recovery of the disputed land. Thus I take the respectful view that the 4th Defendants claim that the Plaintiff’s action is statute barred is an invitation to the court to apply section 10 (1) and (2) of the Limitation Act, 1972 (Act 54). Section 10 (1) and (2) of Act 54 provides as follows: 13 of 39 10. (1) A person shall not bring an action to recover a land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to the person bringing it or, if it first accrued to a person through whom the first mentioned claims to that person. (2) A right of action to recover land does not accrue unless the land is in the possession of a person in whose favour the period of limitation can run. My understanding of section 10(2) of Act 54 is that person seeking to rely on the defence of limitation must be in adverse possession of the disputed land. This principle is enunciated in several cases in Ghana. In the case of Mmra v Donkor [1992-93] 4 GBR 1636 it was stated in holding 6 as follows: “Under the Limitation Decree 1972 (NRCD 54) s 10, if an occupier was not in adverse possession, the period of limitation could not run against the true owner. A person was said to be in adverse possession if he went into possession or dealt with the property without the knowledge or consent of the owner”. Again in his legal text “Land Law, Practice and Conveyancing in Ghana”, 3rd edition, Justice Dennis Dominic Adjei at page 254 of the book explained the preconditions necessary when the defence of limitation is raised as follows: “No action shall be brought by any person after the expiration of twelve years from the date the cause of action accrued to recover possession of land and it shall be applicable to that person’s successor in title. The limitation period shall start running from the time the person who is in adverse possession or who is being claimed against took possession of 14 of 39 the property. The limitation period shall start running from the time the person who is claiming adverse title took possession of the property”. The above principle therefore means that the defence of limitation is not available to persons claiming absolute right to the property. This principle was expressly stated in the case of Abigail Ayorkor Addo-Quaye, Samuel Quansah and William Adjei Thompson Vs. Nii Aflah II (SUIT NO. H1/62/2020) reported in Dennislaw with citation number [2020] DLCA8807 and delivered on 30th April, 2020. The Court of Appeal per Kyei Baffour, JA held as follows: “And these three principles of law being statute of limitation, laches and acquiescence only apply to a litigant who is asserting adverse claim. And therefore they are available to parties who found their claim as squatters or strangers to land but not a party who is asserting a right of being on a land by virtue of being a true owner of the land. See LINDSAY PETROLUEM OIL v HURD (1874) LR 5 PC 221 at 239; PAYIN v ANQUANDAH 12 WACA 284 @ 286. In any case laches and acquiescence do not require an adverse claimant to be on a land for twelve years. Therefore the application of these three principles by the learned trial Judge in dismissing the claim of Plaintiff as being in possession of the land was completely misconceived. There was no basis for Plaintiffs to have asserted true ownership and also plead laches and acquiescence as they would have been inconsistent with their claim of being the true owners of the land”. So the question is whether the 4th Defendant was asserting adverse possession (or squatter rights) over the disputed land for over twelve years. Adverse possession was explained by the HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC in the Mmra case (supra) at page 1649 as follows: 15 of 39 “In my view a person is said to be in adverse possession if he is in possession of or deals with another’s property without his knowledge or consent but in such circumstances that if the owner of the property was ordinarily diligent, he would have discovered the interference with his property” The 4th Defendant in his pleadings and evidence traced her root of title per an indenture between John Peter Mensah and William Huttorn Makronne dated 9th April, 1902. Paragraph 6, 7, 8 and 9 of 4th Defendant’s amended statement of Defence states as follows: 6. That the said land was acquired in April, 1902 by the grandfather of the 4th Defendant by name John Peter Mensah, now deceased from William Hutton Makourne. 7. The acquisition was reduced into an Indenture between John Peter Mensah and William Hutton Makournne dated the 9th day of April, 1992. 8. The 4th Defendant’s Ground father John Peter Mensah subsequently executed a Deed of Gift in favour of his infant daughter Agnes Mensah, to be held in trust for her by Akosua Appiawa, wife of Kofi Ninfa, his brother in law. 9. John Peter Mensah before his death took possession of the land and placed some of the ancestors of the Plaintiff on the land as caretakers including the 1st Defendant who happens to be the brother of the Plaintiff in this matter The evidence of 4th Defendant’s attorney populated the 4th Defendant’s pleadings in respect of their root of title in multiple paragraphs of her witness statement. Particularly paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 24 of her witness statement. 16 of 39 Clearly from the above pleadings and evidence, I find that the 4th Defendant is claiming or asserting true ownership of the disputed property and not adverse possession. It is therefore I respectful view that the defence of limitation is unavailable to the 4th Defendant against the recovery of possession when his claim is premised on the claim that the disputed land belonged to his family and further that it was his grandfather who placed some members of the Plaintiff’s family on the disputed land care takers. Issue 2 Whether or not the disputed land was founded by Plaintiffs ancestors? The next issue to determine is whether or not the disputed land was founded by the Plaintiffs ancestors. This issue calls for the interrogation of the Plaintiffs’ root of title which forms the basis of their claim over the disputed property. The predicate question though is to determine which of the parties bore the evidential burden to establish their claim, particularly in circumstances where the Defendant had disputed the claims. Both lawyers referred the court to the relevant authorities on the issue of burdens. In determining this question I will rest on a couple of cases. The principle enunciated in these cases is that in an action for declaration of title to land the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to put before the court credible evidence to establish their root of title, mode of acquisition etc. In the case of Nana Amua Gyebu XV vrs Mondia Veneer (GH) Ltd [2011] SCGLR 466 Wood, CJ stated as follows in a judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 11th August, 2010: 17 of 39 “In land litigation, even where living witnesses who were directly involved in the transaction under reference are produced in court as witnesses, the law requires the person asserting title, and on whom the burden of persuasion falls, as in this instant case, to prove the root of title, mode of acquisition and various acts of possession exercised over the subject matter of litigation. It is only where the party has succeeded in establishing these facts on the balance of probabilities, that the party would be entitled to the claim. We would be committing a grievous error, if we glossed over these critical legal imperatives, proceed to overturn the clearly supportable concurrent findings of the two lower courts and find for the appellants on the threadbare evidence they produced at the trial. It is plain from the evidence that the appellants failed to establish the actual mode of acquisition, since none of the witnesses who testified were involved in the actual transaction”. In the case of Abbey & Others v Antwi [2010] SCGLR 17. At page 23 of this case, Ansah JSC stated as follows: “This suit being one for declaration of title, the Plaintiff had an onerous burden to discharge. This is trite law. The case of Akoto II v Kvege [1984] 2 GLR 365, C. A., related to an action for declaration of title. The Court of Appeal (per its judgment delivered by Francois JSC) said (as stated at page 371 of the Report): “The suit being one for a declaration of title, the plaintiffs have an onerous burden to discharge. This is trite law and would have necessitated no further comment but for the procedure adopted by the plaintiffs of throwing this burden to the winds.” 18 of 39 Finally in the case of Jass Co. Ltd v Appau [2009] SCGLR 265, the Supreme Court stated in holding 1 of the report that: “The burden of proof is always put on the plaintiff to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities in an action for a declaration of title to land. Where the defendant has not counterclaimed, and the plaintiff has not been able to make out a sufficient case against the defendant, then the plaintiff’s claim would be dismissed”. So how did the Plaintiff’s trace their root of title against the 4th Defendant? The Plaintiffs in their pleadings alleged that their ancestor Nana Kobena Dame broke the virgin forest following which their family had remained in an uninterrupted possession and occupation of the land for well over a century. So what evidence did the plaintiffs lead in proof of their root of title. The 2nd Plaintiff in his witness statement filed on 18th December, 2020 stated as follows: 4. I say that my ancestors by name Nana Kobena Dame broke the virgin forest of the disputed land 190 years ago. 5. Further, after my ancestors breaking the virginity of the disputed land he subsequently settle [sic] on it with his family as farmers. 6. My family have since Wonyatu was founded enjoyed its Land and exercised open acts of possession, control and ownership over it without any let or hindrance. 7. My family have also alienated portion of the disputed land to individuals for building projects, cement stores, drug stores and mosque. 19 of 39 8. Further these projects were carried out by these individuals openly on the potions of the disputed land sold to them by my family without any challenge or opposition from anybody. 9. I therefore contend forcefully that if indeed the disputed land is owned by the Bartels family they would have challenged those individuals whom my family have alienated portions of the disputed land to for their individual projects or in the alternative sued them for trespass. 10. That my ancestors took possession of it without any interruption or hindrance from any quarters till recently that the 4th Defendant are claiming ownership of same. The 2nd Plaintiff in paragraph 14 of his witness statement further stated that his ancestors and current family members were buried in a cemetery located on the disputed land. He tendered photographs of the burial site (Exhibit “A”). Abudu Dramani (PW1) one of the boundary owners of the plaintiff testified as follows: 4. I came to know the Plaintiffs by virtues of the fact that my family lands share boundary with the Plaintiff’s family lands at Wonyatu. 5. My ancestor by name Lawyer John Mensah Sarba acquired our family lands which shared boundary with the Plaintiffs land from Yayakwano. 6. Our family Land was acquired by my ancestors 95 years ago and since that [sic] my family had continued to share boundary with Plaintiff’s family. 7. M family lands share boundary with the Plaintiff’s family at the Southern part where we have our “god” (oboyayakwa) and the Plaintiff’s family also have their cemetery in the same area. 8. Further, my family again share boundary with the Plaintiff at the Western part. 20 of 39 PW2 and PW3 all similarly testified that their respective families shared boundary with the disputed land, which is to their knowledge is owned by the Plaintiff’s family. So the question is whether indeed that Plaintiff family ownership of the disputed land was effectively challenged by the 4th Defendant. A reading of the amended pleading of the 4th Defendant will show that the 4th Defendants family was very much aware that the Plaintiffs had been on the disputed land for a long time. The 4th Defendant in pleadings stated in paragraphs 6 to 10 as follows: 6. That the said land was acquired in April 1902 by the grandfather of the 4th Defendant by name John Peter Mensah, now deceased from William Hutton Makourne. 7. The acquisition was reduced into an indenture between John Peter Mensah and William Huttun Maakourne dated 9th of April, 1902. 8. The 4th Defendant’s grandfather John Peter Mensah subsequently executed a Deed of Gift in favour of his infant daughter Agnes Mensah, to be held in trust for her by Akosua Appiawa, wife of Kofi Ninfa, his brother-in-law. 9. John Peter Mensah before his death took possession of the land and placed some of the ancestors of the Plaintiff on the land as Caretakers including the 1st Defendant who happens to be the brother of the Plaintiff in this matter. (emphasis is mine) My understanding of the pleadings of the 4th Defendant is that even though John Peter Mensah gifted the land he acquired in 1902 to his infant daughter, he subsequently, prior to his death handed over same and placed the plaintiff’s ancestors on the disputed land to hold as caretakers. 21 of 39 This claim was denied by the Plaintiffs who claimed that John Peter Mensah never appointed them as caretakers of the disputed land. The plaintiff evidence as stated earlier was that their presence on the disputed land was as a result of their ancestors having broken the virgin forest. During cross-examination the 4th Defendant’s attorney by counsel for the plaintiff, she testified that John Peter Mensah died around 1926. Q. Tell the court when did John Peter Mensah die? A. Around 1926 This piece of evidence when taken together with the 4th defendant’s pleading that members of the plaintiff’s family were appointed as caretakers, will result in a finding that the case of the 4th Defendant is that the Plaintiffs have been in possession of the disputed land since 1926. Indeed in paragraph 32 and 33 of the 4th Defendant’s attorney witness statement filed on 21st May, 2021 she stated as follows: 32. The Plaintiffs and family members also worshipped at the Church and knew of previous Caretakers appointed by Uncle Victor Armstrong Bartels to oversee the Bartels family lands and collect a portion of the produce from the settler community from my uncle in Cape Coast. 33. The 1st Defendant was later on appointed as one of the Caretakers together with one Peter Ackom, now deceased and Monica Obeng. 22 of 39 During cross-examination of the 4th Defendant Attorney by counsel for the Plaintiff, the 4th Defendant reiterated this fact as follows: Q. Can you tell the court some of the witnesses that were present? A. There were three caretakers. I met them in 2004. One lady and two gentlemen. I believe their names are in the witness statement. In order to establish a factual nexus between the ownership of the land as claimed by the plaintiffs and the alleged appointment of plaintiffs family as caretakers of the disputed land by John Peter Mensah, I am of the considered view that since the 4th Defendant has admitted that the Plaintiff has been in possession of this disputed land by reason of the alleged caretaker arrangement, the presumption that the plaintiff are owners of the land will operate against them, unless there are able to put before this court evidence to show that the said John Peter Mensah placed plaintiffs in possession as caretakers. The basis of this conclusion is found under section 48(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) which provides that: “(1) The things which a person possesses are presumed to be owned by that person”. Again in the case of Osei (substituted by Gillard) v Korang [2013-14] 1 SCGLR 221 the court stated that: “In law, possession is nine points of the law and a plaintiff in possession has a good title against the whole world except one with a better title. It is the law that possession prima facie is evidence of the right to possession and it being good against the whole world except the true owner, he cannot be ousted from it”. 23 of 39 In the case of Aidoo v Adjei and Others [1976] 1 GLR 431@432 where the Court of Appeal per Apaloo JA (as he then was) stated as follow: “As a purely evidential question, a person in possession of land is presumed to be the absolute owner…evidence of long undisturbed possession was not the foundation of title, but used to buttress it”. Unfortunately, even though the 4th Defendant claimed to have met the alleged care takers of the disputed land in 2004, the 4th Defendant failed to produce any of them to testify before this court or explain his reason for the failure to call these material witnesses in proof of their allegation that the plaintiffs’ family members were appointed caretakers of the land. DW1 in paragraph 20 of his witness statement also testified that the 1st Defendant, who is a member of the Plaintiff’s family was in modern times appointed care taker of the land. Surprisingly, the said 1st Defendant failed to attend court to testify. Again none of the other alleged caretakers appointed by the Bartels family as stated in paragraph 20 of the DW1 witness statement was called up to testify in aid of the 4th Defendant. The 4th Defendant and his witnesses not only failed to call the alleged caretakers who they have been in alleged recent communication with. They even failed put before this court evidence of accounts made to them by these alleged caretakers. The role of a caretaker is no ordinary role. A caretaker is a fiduciary agent appointed by another person to administer property in the interest of a beneficiary. Caretakers are accordingly obligated to account for their administration of the land to the beneficiary. Thus I am of the considered view that 24 of 39 proof of the existence of a caretaker arrangement is a question of fact which must be proofed positively to avoid a finding against the person claiming its existence. Unfortunately as indicated earlier, the record of evidence does not disclose sufficient evidence to support a finding of that caretakers were administering the disputed land on behalf of the Bartel’s family. From the forgoing therefore I find that the 4th Defendant has failed to put before the court evidence to establish that their ancestors appointed members of the Plaintiffs’ family as caretakers of the disputed land. 4th Defendant Be that as it may, the question is whether they exist on the record evidence to establish that the Bartels family owned the disputed land. The 4th Defendant traces its root of title per a deed of conveyance executed between John Peter Bartels as purchaser and William Hutton Malcrounne as vendor on 9th April, 1902. The 4th Defendant’s Attorney testified as follows in respect of the acquisition of the original land by John Peter Mensah. 50. The said JOHN PETER MENSAH now deceased of Commercial Road Cape Coast in the then Gold Coast Colony prepared a Deed of Conveyance as evidence of the Transfer of his acquired land to his infant daughter AGNES MENSAH. 51. I shall tender the Deed of Conveyance described therein as Instrument to the Court as 'EXHIBIT B8' made between JOHN PETER MENSAH as the Purchaser and WILLIAM HUTTON MALCROUNNE (the Vendor) dated the 9th day of April 1902. 52. The said Instrument was delivered to the then Registrar of Deeds for registration by JOHN PETER MENSAH of Cape Coast on 30th day of 25 of 39 September 1904 and duly registered as No. 165 and engrossed on pages 675 to 680 of the Register of Conveyances Volume 2 of February 1902 Cape Coast and all the requisite fees paid and receipted. 53. The said Instrument of Conveyance covers the piece or parcel of land then referred to and called "Yayakwanu" with villagers thereon called Mayankrom and Wayatu situate in the Cape Coast District. 54. In the said Instrument. JOHN PETER MENSAH the father of my paternal grandmother MS AGNES MENSAH who later became MRS AGNES BARTELS. in consideration of the natural love and affection he bore to AGNES MENSAH. his infant daughter with his wife AKOSUA APPIAWA, as a Gift for life and upon her death to her children. 55. As AGNES MENSAH was an infant then, the said John Peter Mensah (my maternal grandfather) conveyed, the land, the subject matter in the Instrument, to his wife AKOSUA APPIAWA and one KOUFIE NINFA of Kakmoodoo (now Kakumdo) to hold in TRUST for the infant AGNES MENSAH till she had became of age. 56. The said Instrument indicated in its recitals that the land conveyed to the said AGNES BARTELS nee MENSAH, and to be held in trust for her was known by the name of YAYAKWANU together with the villages of Mayankrome and Wonyatu with boundaries well identified in the Instrument and a Plan of Land embodied therein with names stated thereon as YAYAKWANU. Meayakrome and Mayatu. 57. My Bartels family has since the conveyance of the land from John Peter Mensah, their grandfather, been in possession of the original Instrument which has passed through successive Elders in the family. 26 of 39 The 4th Defendant attorney then purports to tender the said Deed of Conveyance dated 9th April, 1902 as Exhibit “B8” to evince the conveyance between John Peter Bartels and William Hutton Malcrounne as stated in paragraph 51 of her witness statement, which I reproduce again as follows: 51. I shall tender the Deed of Conveyance described therein as Instrument to the Court as 'EXHIBIT B8' made between JOHN PETER MENSAH as the Purchaser and WILLIAM HUTTON MALCROUNNE (the Vendor) dated the 9th day of April 1902. It is trite learning the in all such deeds, the recitals of an instrument details the parties and explains the purpose of the instrument and also provides other information regarding the subject matter of the instrument. The recital in Exhibit B8 states as follows: “WHEREAS I John Peter Mensah of Commercial Road Cape Coast in the Gold Coast Colony Store-Keeper am seised of and fully entitled to the tract of land hereinafter described and intended to be hereby given and granted the same having been sold to me for the price or sum of (£30) Thirty pounds by an Indenture dated the 9th of April, 1902 made between William Hutton Malcrounne therein described of the one part and me John Peter Mensah therein also described of the other part NOW THESE PRESENTS WITNESS that in consideration of the natural love and affection which I have and bear unto Agness Mensah the infact daughter of my wife by Fanti customary law Akosua Appiawa Mensah of Commercial Road aforesaid by me John Peter Mensah and of (5/-_ five shillings paid to me by the said Akosua Appiawa (the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged) I have given and granted and granted and 27 of 39 hereby give and grant unto the said Akosua Appiwaa and Kofi Ninfa of Kakmoodoo now resident in the village of Yamobachere in the Cape Coast district of the Gold Coast brother of the said Akosua Appiwa and their heirs all that tract of land situate in the district of Cape Coast aforesaid and known by the name of Yayakwanu together with the villages Mayankrome and Wayatu situate thereon…” Again the title attributed to the instrument (Exhibit “B8”) is “John Peter Mensah to Akosuah Appiawa and Kofi Ninfa in trust for Agnes Mensah”. Clearly, a reading of recitals in Exhibit B8 will show that the said document is not a Deed of Conveyance between Mr. John Peter Mensah and William Hutton Malcrounne. It is therefore not clear the purpose for the attempted misdirection by the 4th Defendant Attorney. What the evidence speaks too though is that the 4th Defendant Attorney, contrary to paragraph 51 of her witness statement has failed to put before this court evidence to show that that there exists a deed of conveyance between John Peter Mensah and William Hutton Malcroune. 2nd Defendant who is a ranking member of the plaintiffs’ family in his witness statement stated that that the disputed land belongs to the 4th Defendant’s family and that he came by this knowledge upon perusal of some documents. His evidence is captured in paragraph 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of his witness statement as follows: 2. After a series of business meetings, I was engaged by the Bartels Family to inspect the disputed land at Woeyato, a village in the Cape Coast Municipality, 28 of 39 examine all relevant documents on the land, satisfy myself of its ownership and indicate my acceptance to look for a buyer or buyers for the land. 3. I conducted due diligence on the documents handed over to me and engaged 4. 5. other professionals to assist me with my due diligence work. I was given copies of the documents to help me in my work. I became convinced and I believed that the disputed land remained the bona fide property of the Bartels Family to the exclusion of any other claimant, if at all. 6. I became seized with the knowledge and believed in the fact that the Bartels Family had owned the land as far back as in 1902 or thereabouts by the documents forwarded to me. 7. I shall leave the 4th Defendant to lead evidence on the ownership of the land to and [sic] tender the relevant documents to the Court. As indicated earlier the evidence will show that the 4th Defendant failed to tender the documents explaining the antecedents of their claim that the disputed land was acquired by John Peter Bartels in 1902. When this question was put to the 2nd Defendant below are his responses: Q. Reference to paragraph 2 of your witness statement it is your evidence that you examined all the relevant documents on the land and you became satisfied of its ownership. Is that correct? A. That is so. Q. Tell the court the relevant documents you examined in respect of the disputed land? A. I examined the indenture which was dated 1902. I took it to the Lands Commission to verify. After that I went to Lawyer Obeng Mensah to give 29 of 39 me the true state of that land and he told me that the documents are genuine and that the land belongs to the 4th defendant. Q. Did you peruse the indenture that was handed over to you to identify the parties that executed the said indenture? A. I did not because I gave it to Lawyer Obeng Mensah to examine for me. Q. Did you see any document showing how the Bartels family acquired the disputed land? A. The document I saw was the indenture of 1902 that I gave to Lawyer Obeng Mensah Q. Is “Exhibit B8” attached to the 4th defendant’s attorney witness statement the document you are referring to? A. This is not the document because the document I gave to Lawyer Obeng Mensah; the whole document was handwritten. Q. Would you be surprised to learn that the 4th defendant’s lawful attorney told this court that apart from “Exhibit B8” she had no other documents covering the land? A. I will be very surprised. When they gave me the document it was a photocopy so I had to do my search by going to Lands Commission, Cape Coast and Cape Coast Lands Commission referred me to Sekondi that at that time the Lands Department was under Sekondi so I got to the lands department at Sekondi. And they gave me a reference number to National Archives, Accra and that is where the original document which is handwritten dated 1902. 30 of 39 The question is if the instrument in the name of Mr. John Peter Mensah is readily available at the National Achieves and with the 4th Defendant. Why did they fail to tender same, but elected to misrepresent to the court that same was tendered. Again why did they fail to tender the alleged instrument as stated in paragraph 52 of 4th Defendant’s witness statement as follows? 52. The said Instrument was delivered to the then Registrar of Deeds for registration by JOHN PETER MENSAH of Cape Coast on 30th day of September 1904 and duly registered as No. 165 and engrossed on pages 675 to 680 of the Register of Conveyances Volume 2 of February 1902 Cape Coast and all the requisite fees paid and receipted. Statutory Declaration The 4th Defendants attorney also tendered a statutory declaration as Exhibit “B5” purporting to declare that the land described in the schedule of 4th Defendant’s Attorney Exhibit “B5” belongs to “Mrs. Agnes Bartels, nee Mensah, of Cape Coast, same having been assured to her by Deed of Conveyance No. 1261/1903 and registered as No. 165 in 1904 at Cape Coast. The Declarants in 4th Defendant’s attorney’s Exhibit B5 are the children of Mrs. Agnes Bartels. The 4th Defendant’s attorney also tendered a search report (Exhibit B6) requested by Charles Ernest Bartels in respect of the registered statutory declaration. The issue which arises however is what weight the court should attach to the statutory declaration tendered by the 4th Defendant’s Attorney. Statutory declarations as a document claiming ownership of land has long being regarded as per se a self-serving document, particularly against the backdrop of the 31 of 39 denials contained in the pleadings and so have no probative value. In the case of In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands [2003-2004] SCGLR 420, the Supreme Court per Wood CJ. was reported in holding 7 as follows: (7) The Court of Appeal erred in upholding the validity of the statutory declaration because the Lands Commission had taken a decision (not yet set aside by court) and accepted as true the contents of the statutory declaration submitted to it by the first defendant’s family. Generally, statutory declarations per se, were self-serving and so of no probative value, where the facts, as in the instant case, have been challenged or disputed. In any event, a statutory declaration was not a registered document under the Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122), nor was it a deed or conveyance purporting to create or convey an interest in land. Again in the case of Nana Amua Gyebu XV v Mondial Veneer (Gh) Ltd (supra) it was stated as follows: “Given the nature of the pleadings, and the duty cast on the appellants, producing a self- serving statutory declaration is definitely the most unreliable mode of proving ownership of the disputed property”. One of the issues set down for trial is whether or not the 4th Defendant's Bartels Family had a valid and legal title to the disputed land by virtue of the Statutory Declaration dated 17th November, 1977 and registered at the Lands Commission as No. CCT 1452/77? When I apply the law regarding the probative value of statutory declarations, I find that the statutory declaration registered at the Land Commission as No. CCT 1452/77 has no 32 of 39 effect vis as vis proof of the root of title of the 4th Defendant since it does not confer title over the disputed land on the 4th Defendant’s family. Identity of Disputed Land The next question which is of utmost importance is the issue of the identity of the disputed land. It is my considered view that in land cases it is of utmost importance that the identity of the land claimed by a party be proven with some degree of certainty. In the case of Anane v Donkor [1965] GLR 188. At page 192 of the report the eminent jurists said as follows: “Where a court grants declaration of title to land or makes an order for injunction in respect of land, the land the subject of that declaration should be clearly identified so that an order for possession can be executed without difficulty and also if the order for injunction is violated the person in contempt can be punished. If the boundaries of such land are not clearly established, a judgment or order of the court will be in vain. Again, a judgment for declaration of title to land should operate as res judicata to prevent the parties relitigating the same issue in respect of the identical subject matter but it cannot so operate unless the subject matter thereof is clearly identified.” In the case of Tetteh v. Hayford [2012] 1 SCGLR 417 at 426 the Supreme Court held as follows: “The position of the law, following from the decision in Fofie v Wusu [1992-93] GBR 877 is that it is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the identity of the land she is laying claim to. Failure to prove this identity is fatal to a claim for declaration of title. In the Fofie case, the court of Appeal: coram, Lamptey, Adjabeng and Brobbey JJA (as they were then) speaking with one voice through Lamptey JA held as follows: 33 of 39 “To success in an action for a declaration of title to land a party must adduce evidence to prove and establish the identity of the land in respect of which he claimed a declaration of title. On the evidence the plaintiff failed to prove the identity of the land claimed.”” The plaintiff and his witnesses did not tender any site plans. In their pleading however they provided details of the land claimed. The Plaintiff testified that the disputed land is located at Wonyato (differently spelt by the parties) and called their boundary owners to testify. They each claimed they shared common boundary with the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s undisputed evidence was further that they had a family cemetery on the disputed land where their ancestors and current family members are buried. The evidence of PW1, and the Ebusuabatan of the Aboradze family of Yayakwano, a boundary owner was that his ancestor Lawyer John Mensah Sarbah acquired this family land about ninety-five years ago and they shared boundary with the plaintiffs’family from their location at Yayakwano. PW2 and PW3 similarly testified that they shared common boundary with the family of the Plaintiff. Counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendant in his supplementary closing address filed on 26th July, 2023 raised issues regarding the credibility of the evidence of the boundary owners of the plaintiff. He submitted as follows at page 8: “Surely if in 1902 the Patriarchs of the 4th Defendant could produce documentary proof of their land how come the Plaintiff failed to produce even 34 of 39 an iota of a Search Report from the disputed land, save the pictures of two graves which could have been taken from anywhere in a remote cemetery? Very fatal to the case of the Plaintiffs is the evidence of their Witnesses who gave woefully conflicting evidence bordering on perjury and hearsay. At page 25 of 58 of the Record of Proceedings the cross examination of PW 2 George Odoom was given on 4th of March 2022. Hear him Q. From your statement I am putting it to you that your statement in paragraph 6 is a palpable falsehood just to deceive this Court because you have said you don't know her age but you have just said she died at age 156 year? A. I have not stated anywhere that she died at age 156. Q. A. But you signed this Witness Statement by yourself, is that not so? That is so. I signed it myself. Clearly, this was a patent inconsistency on the part of PW2. This is because as rightly pointed out to him counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants during cross-examination, PW2 in paragraph 6 of his witness statement distinctively stated that the lady died at age 156 years. Be that as it may, the question is whether or not the inconsistency in paragraph 6 of the evidence in chief and responses given at cross-examination is material enough to impair 35 of 39 the evidence of PW2 as a boundary owner. In appropriately responding to this question I will rely on further responses given by PW2 during cross-examination. Q. Did you read over your witness statement before you appended your signature? A. No. I did not read. Now it is trite learning that a witness statement should be in the witness’s own words and contain an account from his or her personal knowledge. Thus even where the witness statement is typed out, it is incumbent that the witness reads the witness statement to ensure that the contained disclosed therein are incidents in their personal knowledge. Thus where a witness disputes the contents of his own statement and additionally states that he did not read the statement before signing, then the presumption that he is unaware of the disclosures contained in the statement which is being used as evidence against another will be presumed against him. It will also impair the credibility of the evidence contained in the witness statement. In the circumstance I find the entire evidence in chief of PW2 not credible. Counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendant raised similar issues in respect of the evidence of PW3. My view however of the credibility issues raised is that same is not material enough to render the evidence of PW3 manifestly unreliable. The 4th Defendant Attorney on the other hand did not call any boundary owners but tendered statutory declaration which I have dismissed on the grounds that same does not confer title. The only site plan tendered by the 4th Defendant attorney is dated as 36 of 39 recently as 2015. Interestingly, site plan attached to the search report (Exhibit “B6”) which states that the statutory declaration was registered in 1977, is dated 2015. It is unclear how this is chronologically probable. The site plan (Exhibit “B4”) also has a similar configuration as the site plan attached to the search report. This finding suggests to me that that site plan was not registered at the same time as the statutory declaration. So the question is how come same is presented to the court as if they were registered together. This to my mind casts down on the reliability of the site plan tendered by the 4th Defendant’s attorney, that is, Exhibit “B4”. Concluding on this issue, I find that the Plaintiffs have through PW1 and PW3 put before this court evidence to establish on the balance of probabilities the identity of their land. I further find that the 4th Defendant have failed to put before the court evidence to establish that their ancestors place the Plaintiff’s ancestors on the family land as caretakers. Accordingly, per the application of the nemo dat quod non habet rule, I find that any purported alienation of the disputed land by the 4th Defendant or his family has no legal basis since they do not own the disputed land and therefore cannot purport to alienate same. Conclusion In conclusion I do not find it necessary to determine the other issues which have no material impact on my conclusions. I however find that the Plaintiffs’ have put before the court evidence to establish their claims against the Defendant on the preponderance of probabilities. Judgment is accordingly entered in their favour as follows: 37 of 39 1. The Plaintiffs’ family are hereby declared owners of that the land lying and being on the Cape Coast-Jukwa Road on the right hand side from Cape Coast, which land is known and called Wonyatu and bounded on the West by the Cape Coast Jukwa Road, on the East by Tayirdo and Nyamebekyere, on the South by Yayaakoano and on the North by Cape Coast Quarry, which land is in a total acreage of 37.51 more or less is the property of the Plaintiffs Nana Kobena Dame Anona Family of Wonyatu near Efutu, Cape Coast, which land its virginity was broken by the ancestral figure of the Plaintiffs by name of Nana Kobena Dame. 2. It is further declared that the purported land transaction between the 1st and 2nd Defendants as agents for the 4th Defendant and by extension including the 4th Defendant on one part, and the 3rd Defendant on the other part is null and void. 3. The Regional Lands Commission, Cape Coast is hereby ordered to expunge from their records any purported document in respect of the subject matter land registered by the 4th Defendant with the Commission. 4. The 4th Defendants, their agents, privies, servants, servants, workmen and all persons claiming through or in trust for them hereby injuncted from having anything to do with the land the subject matter of this litigation. 5. Cost of Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢20, 000.00) against the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants. (SGD) Emmanuel Atsu Lodoh, J (Justice of the High Court) 38 of 39 Lawyers Isaac Aggrey-Fynn, Esq. for Solomon Gyesi for the Plaintiff. K. O. Amponsah-Dadzie, Esq. for the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants 39 of 39