NANA OBEN ACHEAMPONG II & 2 OTHERS VRS KPEGBAH (A1/01/2024) [2023] GHADC 1137 (30 November 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT DAMBAI ON THURSDAY 30TH NOVEMBER 2023 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP ALHASSAN DRAMANI, ESQ. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUIT NO. A1/01/2024 1. NANA OBEN ACHEAMPONG II Suing as a beneficiary of VRA acquired land And on behalf of his clan heads; 2. NANA DONKOR THEOPHILOUS (BAMUHENE) 3. NANA OPPONG PAUL (ADONTENHENE) ALL OF ADONKWANTA OTISU VRS CHARLES KPEGBAH OF ADONKWANTA PLAINTIFFS PRESENT DEFENDANT PRESENT PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGEMENT The Plaintiffs per their Writ of Summons claims against the Defendant the following reliefs: i. “A declaration of tittle and recovery of possession of all that parcel of land situate, lying and being at Adonkwanta being (VRA) Volta River Authority acquired land for resettlement land given to Plaintiff and other members at Adonkwanta—Otisu which land Defendant is laying claim to, to be his bonafide property within Krachi East Municipality of the Oti Region and the boundaries are as follows; a. North-East by open space measuring 17942.5 feet and 9279.2 feet more or less. b. On the South-East by open space measuring 3304.1 feet more or less c. South-West by the Kantanka resettlement site and farm land measuring a distance of 14024 feet more or less. In totality the land is 4,714.60 acres more or less d. On the East by the Volta Lake measuring 30,000 feet more or less is a VRA acquired land with plaintiffs as the beneficiaries. ii. An order of perpetual injunction restraining Defendant, his agents, assigns, privies, workmen and whosoever may trace tittle through Defendant from interfering with Plaintiff enjoyment of the land. iii. An order for recovery of possession iv. General Damages for trespass. v. Any order or orders the Honourable Court may deem fit vi. Cost.” Defendant denied the entire claim and counterclaim for the following reliefs: 1. Declaration of tittle to all that parcel of land as described in Plaintiffs particulars of claim. 2. An order of perpetual injunction restraining Plaintiffs, their agents, assigns, privies, workmen and whosoever that claims through them. 3. An order of recovery of possession 4. General damages for trespass 5. Any orders as the court may deem fit 6. Cost THE CASE OF PLAINTIFFS The substance of Plaintiff’s claims is that the 1st Plaintiff is the Chief of Adonkwanta Otisu whilst the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs are sub chiefs of Otisu. According to the Plaintiffs during the construction of the Akosombo Lake in the year 1964, the farm lands and homes of they and their subjects were affected and as a result the Government of Ghana through the Volta River Authority (VRA) acquired the disputed land measuring 4,714.60 acres known as VRA acquired land-Adonkwanta and resettled them on it. Plaintiffs said they have since then been having quiet enjoyment of the disputed subject matter till recently when the Defendant, a native of Keveh in the Republic of Togo but resident in Adonkwanta started laying claims on the subject matter and harassing them and preventing their subjects from undertaking any activity on the land. Plaintiff further stated that despite several attempts by the Krachi East Municipal Assembly and the VRA to resolve the issue the Defendant have remained adamant and is bent on causing chaos in the community. Plaintiffs called Nana Anane Samuel as PW1. PW1 basically corroborated the testimony of Plaintiffs and added that Defendant was not one of the persons resettled on the disputed land by the VRA and thus, have no interest whatsoever in the land. According to PW1 defendant’s late father bought one of the quarters that were built by the VRA for the resettlers and that is where Defendant and his family are currently living. Thereafter the Plaintiffs brought their case to a close. EXHIBITS FILED BY PLAINTIFF 1. Exhibit “A”-Executive Instrument (E. I.) 57 dated 18th May 1973 2. Exhibit “B”-Adonkwanta VRA resettlement site and farm lands 3. Exhibit “C”-Application for farm land dated 2nd February 1988 4. Exhibit “D”- Letter from VRA to Okyeame Caesar of Adonkwanta dated 28th February 2019 5. Exhibit “E”-Letter from VRA to the DCE Krachi East dated 21st June, 2019 6. Exhibit “F”- Judgment dated 22nd June, 2022 7. Exhibit “G”- Minutes of Municipal Security Council (Musec) meeting in Tokoroano, Adonkwanta and Pai-katanga on 8th - 9th February 2022 to settle land disputes in the VRA resettlement areas. THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT The case of the Defendant as can be glean from his Statement of Defence and evidence was that his grandfather led three groups of people to settle and found Adonkwanta in the 1940s. According to Defendant in the year 1956 the Paramount Chief of Pai Traditional Area Nana Aponkoni sold all the forest area of Adonkwanta to his grandfathers and in addition all the grassland areas of Adonkwanta were given out for free to his grandfather in order to prevent trespass on the land. Defendant said the Government of Ghana through the VRA later acquired part of the Adonkwanta land and during the process of the acquisition of the land it was Nana Aponkoni and Defendant’s grandfathers who gave the VRA the right of entry into the land and that the entire Adonkwanta land was not affected by the Government acquisition. According to Defendant there is a clear boundary between the VRA resettlement town and that of the host farmers’ village (Adonkwanta Old Town) with boundary pillars erected. Defendant stated that E. I. 57 of 1973 is limited in interpretation and misleading and that E. I. 98 is the appropriate E. I. governing the disputed land. Defendant said per E. I. 98 the VRA acquired land is at the Western side of the Adonkwanta town and ends at a place known as base line some few meters away from the Adonkwanta Township. Defendant said it is rather the Plaintiffs who trespassed on his land and are allocating same to people without his consent. Defendant further said 1st Plaintiff is not the Chief of Adonkwanta but rather the Nifahene of Pai Traditional area who was enstooled by the Pai Traditional Council just as the Ahenkro chief Nana Kukuro II (Adontenhene) and Defendant’s father Torgbe Ddzai II the Ewe Chief of Adonkwanta who were all enstooled by the Pai Traditional Authority. He said all these chiefs including Plaintiffs pay homage to the Pai Traditional Council. Defendant said the VRA acquired land belongs to the entire Adonkwanta and not only for the people of Otisu and hence the Plaintiffs cannot exclusively claim same. The Defendant called one witness as DW1 DW1 was Nana Osafo Kantanka. According to DW1 he is the stool father of the Pai Katanga Traditional Area. DW1 said the disputed land forms part of Pai Katanga lands. DW1 added that Adonkwanta used to be called Nkuatem till the Government through the VRA compulsorily acquired Nkuatem and the name metamorphous into Adonkwanta due to the difficulty in pronouncing the original name by the surveyors who came to survey the land. According to DW1 somewhere in 1956 the then Chief of Pai Katanga, Nana Aponkoni and his elders had information that some people from Togo had trespassed on the above stated land so they quickly arrested them and handed them over to the Police in Krachi. That the said suspects included one Kpegbah who was the grandfather of the Defendant herein and when the suspects were questioned by the Police they indicated that the land was sold to them by the people of Apesokubi. However, after investigation Kpegbah and his people came to Nana Aponkoni and pleaded with him and he regularised their stay on the land. DW1 stated that 1st Plaintiff and his predecessor Nana Kwadwo Dwamena are sub chiefs of Pai Katanga and are aware that the disputed land was sold to the Defendant’s grandfather and his people. Thereafter the Defendant brought his case to a close. EXHIBITS FILED BY DEFENDANT 1. Exhibit-1 Land purchase receipt 2. Exhibit-2 Map/site plan The legal issues to be determined in this matter in the view of this Court are as follows: 1. Whether the disputed land was compulsorily acquired by the Government of Ghana. 2. Whether the Plaintiffs have interest in the disputed land. 3. Whether the Plaintiffs trespassed on Defendant’s land. APPLICABLE LAW Before I determine the issues, I will briefly analyse the burden of proof. The law is settled that the plaintiff who in his or her pleadings or writ raises issues essential to the success of his case assumes the onus of proof; In every civil case, the general rule is that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of his case. In the case of Lamptey alias Nkpa v. Fanyie & Others [1989-90] 1 GLR pgs 286, the Supreme Court held that: “On general principles, it was the duty of a plaintiff to prove his case. However, when on a particular issue he had led some evidence, then the burden will shift to the defendant to lead sufficient evidence to tip the scale in his favour”. This burden of proof is statutorily defined in section 10 (1) and (2), 11 (1) and (4) and 12 (1) and (2) of the evidence Act, 1975 (Act 323). The burden of proof in civil cases and for that matter in land case, has further been stated in the case of Adwubeng v Domfeh [1996- 97] 1 SCGLR 660. Therefore, in the instant case, since the Defendant has a counterclaim both parties are required to prove their respective claims for he who alleges must prove. The burden is on preponderance of probabilities. In the case of In Re: Ashalley Botwe lands; Adjetey Agbosu and Others v. Kotey and Others (2003-04) SCGLR 420, Brobbey JSC interpreted section 11(1) of the Evidence Decree 1975 (N. R. C. D 323) at pages 464 to 465 and held that: “A litigant who is a defendant in a civil case does not need to prove anything, the Plaintiff who took the Defendant to Court has to prove what he claims he is entitled to from the Defendant. At the same time, if the Court has to make a determination of a fact or of an issue, and the determination depends on evaluation of facts and evidence, the defendant must realize that the determination cannot be made on nothing. If the defendant desires the determination to be made in his favour, then he has the duty to help his own cause or case by adducing before the Court such facts or evidence that will induce the determination to be made in his favour….”. EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE Considering the nature of the issues supra, issue one and two will be dealt with together as a single issue. The crux of the case of the Plaintiffs was that the disputed land measuring a total of 4,714.60 acres was compulsorily acquired by the state in 1973 and their community Otisu and two other communities (Ahenkro and Beposo) were resettled there following the construction of the Akosombo Hydro Electric project which got them displaced. The plaintiffs exhibited the Executive Instrument (E. I.) 57 under which the disputed land was acquired as exhibit “A”. For the benefit of clarity, I reproduce below the schedule of the above stated E. I. as follows; “All that piece or parcel of land containing an approximate area of 4714.60 situate at Adonkwanta in the Buem Krachi District in the Volta Region of the Republic of Ghana lying to the East of and adjoining the Western Bank of the Volta lake and bounded on the North-East and East by open space and measuring on those sides total distance of 17942.5 feet and 7279.2 feet respectively on the South East by open space measuring on that side a total distance of 3304.1 feet on the South-West by the Katanga resettlement site and farm lands measuring on that side a total distance of 1402 feet and on the West by the aforesaid Volta lake and measuring on that side an approximate distance of 30000 feet which piece of land is more particularly delineated on cadastral plan No. X.264d and thereon shown edged pink.” The paragraph immediately after the schedule also stated that “the land the subject matter of the above-mentioned Executive Instrument is now vested in the National Redemption Council on behalf of Ghana free from any encumbrance whatsoever.” In his defence the Defendant vociferously attacked Plaintiffs exhibit “A” describing it as misleading and limited in its interpretation of the words “open spaces”. He accused Plaintiff of tempering with the above stated exhibit. He also argued that Adonkwanta is not in the Krachi Buem District as contained in exhibit “A”. Defendant said E. I. 98 of 1974 supersedes E. I. 57 as such is the appropriate E. I. that contains the appropriate description of the disputed land. Defendant therefore urged the Court not to place any value on plaintiffs’ exhibit “A”. I have carefully examined Plaintiffs exhibit “A”, and I cannot fathom the basis of Defendant’s argument. I fail to see any correction, alteration or hand writing in the said exhibit as alleged by Defendant. What is evident on exhibit “A” is that, the first word in the opening paragraph (“WHEREAS”) appears to have faded a bit and an attempt seems to have been made to rewrite the said word just above the original word, but it is obvious that the attempt was abandoned half-way. In my candid view the original writing has not been affected in anyway. Again Defendant have failed to provide any evidence or demonstrate that E. I. 57 is misleading or limited. Defendant mentioned E. I.98 as the correct E. I. but he has failed to produce the said E. I. 98, this would have afforded the Court the opportunity to critically analyse the two document. On Defendant’s claim that Adonkwanta was not part of the Krachi Buem District; I am rather surprised at Defendant’s argument, it is judicially known that until recently, almost all the Districts in the Oti Region were under the Krachi District. In my view Defendant is making a mounting out of a mole hill with this leg of argument. For the forgoing reasons I find that Plaintiffs exhibit “A” is genuine and cannot be faulted in anyway. From the evidence adduced, Defendant and his witness have not been consistent with their case. On one hand Defendant claim the disputed land does not form part of the land that was compulsorily acquired by the government through the VRA. Yet, on the other hand both Defendant and DW1 claim that government have not paid compensation to them after the acquisition of the subject matter even though they applied for compensation. At paragraph 4 of his statement of claim Defendant stated as follows: “It was the late Nana Aponkoni together with my grandparent who gave the VRA the right of entry into our land. The VRA did not acquire all our land unless Nana Obeng Acheampong can prove me wrong” Below was what ensued when Defendant crossed examined Plaintiff on 24/10/2023: Q. Do you say you come from Adonkwanta. A. Yes. Q. Is it not the VRA which resettled you on the land. A. Yes Q. Was Adonkwanta not in existence before VRA brought you there. A. No. Q. Are you aware that my grandparent bought the disputed land from the Pai Katanga people before the VRA settled you there. A. I am not aware of what you are saying and the records we have from the VRA does not support what you just said. At paragraphs 10 and 11 of DW1’s witness statement he said that the disputed land was sold to Defendant’s grandfather and his people and a deed of transfer was executed on 3rd/July/1956. However, when DW1 came under cross examination on 31/10/2023 he insisted that the VRA acquired the disputed land from Nana Aponkoni Chief of Pai Katanga. Below was the encounter between 1st Plaintiff and DW1 Q. Are you aware that the Defendant told this Court that VRA acquired the land from his grandfathers. A. That is not true the VRA acquired the land from Nana Aponkoni II Q. Are you saying that what the Defendant told this Court is not correct A. I cannot tell, what I know is that the disputed land belongs to Nana Aponkoni of Pai Katanga. From the above DW1 claims the land was sold to Defendant since 1956 and yet he still claims that the same land was acquired by the VRA from the Chief of Pai Katanga and not from Defendant. On lack of consistency in evidence, the Court of Appeal held in the case of Obeng v. Bempomaa [1992-93] GBR 1027 per holding 1 as follows: “Inconsistencies, though individually colorless, may cumulatively discredit the claim of the proponent of the evidence. The conflicts in the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses weakened the merit of his case and proved fatal to his claim”. Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs exhibit “A” (E. I.57) is quite significant and it states as follows: Any person claiming a right or having any interest in the land the subject matter of the above-mentioned Executive Instrument or whose right or interest in any such land is affected in any such manner shall, within three months of the date of the publication of the above-mentioned Executive Instrument, submit in writing to the Chief Lands Officer, P. O. Box 558, Accra. (a) Particulars of the claim or interest in the land (b) The manner in which his claim or interest has been affected by the Instrument. (c) The extent of any damage done. (d) The amount of compensation claim and the basis for the calculations of the compensation. The following encounter also ensued between Plaintiff and DW1 when DW1 came under cross examination on 31/10/2023: Q. Do you know that once the government compulsorily acquire a land from you, the land does not belong to you again. A. That is true, once the government compensates the owner of the land the owner have nothing to do with the land again. Q. I put it to you that the government has compensated the rightful owners of the land. A. The government has not paid any compensation to Nana Aponkoni in respect of the disputed land. Q. Did you apply for the compensation. A. Yes, my father Nana Aponkoni applied to the lands commission through his lawyer. But government did not pay because Nana Adu Asare of Otisu also laid claims to the Adonkwanta lands. So the money has not been paid till date. Q. I suggest to you that it was the VRA who handed over the land to us and you cannot claim the land from us without going through the VRA A. We have not come to claim any land from you. We don’t have any problem with you. But the disputed land was sold to the Defendant by Nana Aponkoni, it was not part of the land acquired by the VRA. From the above what DW1 is simply saying is that the disputed land was acquired by the VRA but compensation was not paid. Yet he quickly turn around to say that the disputed land was sold to Defendant’s grandfather and not part of the land acquired by the VRA. The question one may ask at this juncture is, if the land was not acquired by the VRA, on what basis did DW1’s father, Nana Aponkoni, applied to the Lands Commission for compensation in the first place? It is instructive to note that Defendant under cross examination also indicated that he applied to the Appau’s commission for compensation in respect of the disputed land but his application was not honoured. He also admitted under cross examination on 24/10/2023 that officials of the VRA in a meeting organised by the Krachi East Municipal Assembly held at Adonkwanta made it clear to him that the disputed land was compulsorily acquired by the VRA and that was why he went before the Appau’s commission to seek for compensation. From the evidence adduced it is crystal clear that both Defendant and DW1 have confirmed that the disputed land was acquired by the VRA. In my candid estimation it was based on this fact that Defendant and DW1 both made attempts to claim compensation from the State. If the Defendant’s attempt at getting compensation from the State did not materials, his remedy lie in suing the State to vindicate their right and not continuously harass the poor settlers since they did not come on the land on their own but under the authority of the state. Plaintiffs exhibit “C” which is a letter written by the VRA signed by the Deputy Chief Executive (Services) and addressed to Okyeame Asare Caesar of Adonkwanta dated 28th February, 2019 is quite significant and for the sake of clarity I reproduce its entire content below: “RE: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION We refer to your letter dated 11th February, 2019 on the above subject matter. This is to advice that the government of Ghana acquired a parcel of land at Adonkwanta in the then Volta Region as part of the land requirement for the Akosombo Hydro Electric project. The said land which measured 4,714.60 acres was formerly acquired by Executive Instrument 57 of 1973 and used for the resettlement of people who were displaced as result of the project. Please note that all previous rights have been extinguished with the publication of the Executive Instrument (E. I.). Accordingly, no person apart from those who were put there by VRA on behalf of Government can claim any interest or right in the said land. The authority and for that matter Government will not allow anybody to claim ownership and or trespass on the land.” The VRA wrote a similar letter dated 21st June, 2023 addressed to the District Chief Executive of the Krachi East Municipal seeking for his intervention to resolve a conflict between those who were resettled on the land by the VRA and another group, which group per the evidence on record is that of the Defendant. See Plaintiffs exhibit “E”. To give effect to the request the Krachi East Municipal Assembly with the VRA and other stakeholders held meetings with the Tokoroano, Adonkwanta and Pai Katanga communities on the 8th and 9th February, 2022 see Plaintiffs’ exhibit “G”. Again the following ensued when the Defendant came under cross examination by Plaintiff on the 24/10/2024: Q. Was it VRA that brought you on the land. A. No. Q. Do you not live in the VRA quarters with your family. A. Yes, and that is because the quarters is for us. Q. I put it to you that the quarters in which you live with your family was not allocated to you by the VRA. It was bought by your father from one of the people who were resettled there by the VRA. A. Yes Q. I again put it to you that all your kinsmen ((Ewes) who live in the VRA quarters only rented them. A. Yes Q. I finally suggest to you that the disputed land belongs to the VRA and not you. A. That is not true. Exhibit “C” supra is unambiguous it states that apart from those who were put on the land by the VRA no person is entitled to any right or interest in the disputed subject matter. The Defendant have emphatically admitted from the above cross examination that he was not brought onto the land by the VRA and that his father bought the quarters from those who were brought on the land. He further admitted that all his kinsmen who live in the VRA quarters on the disputed land rented the quarters and same were not allocated to them by the VRA. From the foregoing I am more than convinced that the disputed land is a Government acquired land on which the Plaintiffs were resettled and the Defendant have no interest or right whatsoever in the disputed subject matter since he was not put on the land by the VRA per his own admission. Before I sign off on issue one and two let me briefly touch on this important issue with regards to Defendant’s exhibits 1 and 2. Defendant’s exhibit 1 is headed-land purchase receipt. This is what the Defendant also referred to as a deed of transfer. It was purportedly executed between Nana Aponkoni Chief of Pai Katanga traditional area on the one hand and Defendant’s grandfather Kofi Kpegbah and Kwadwo Hedeka on the other hand. The size of the land per exhibit 1 is two hundred and forty four (244) acres. However, in Defendant’s exhibit 2 which is a map/site plan, the size of Defendant’s land therein is 119.76 acres. A careful examination of exhibit 2 again shows that the names on it are Kofi Kpegba and Kwabla Goka, these names are materially different from the names in Exhibit 1. This therefore clearly suggest that exhibit 1 and exhibit 2 are pointing to two different lands. Further when Defendant came under cross examination by Plaintiff he stated that his land is seven thousand (7,000) acres. This figure is completely different from the number of acres stated in both exhibits 1 and 2. From the above it is obvious that the Defendant does not even know the identity and size of his land. It is trite that to succeed in an action for declaration of title to land, the plaintiff must establish by positive evidence the identity and limits of the land he claimed. See Dr. Eric Graham and Another v. Vivian Aku Brown – Danquah and 3 others 146, GMJ 28. Also the Supreme Court in the case of Nortey (NO.2) v. African Inst. of Journalism and Another (NO.2). (2013-2014) 1 SCGLR 703 gave the Yardstick for measuring whether or not a party has succeeded in proving identity of the land being claimed by him. The Court said to prove the identity of a land in dispute, “the plaintiff must establish the identity of the land and all his boundaries; and where there was no properly – oriented plan drawn to scale, which made compass bearings vague and uncertain, the Court, would hold that the plaintiff had not discharged the onus of proof of his title”. In the instant case, the Defendant’s land receipts states that the disputed land is 244 acres, his site plan also stated that the land is 119.76 and when he came under cross examination he stated that the land is 7,000 acres. As if this was not enough the names on his land purchase receipt and the site plan are not the same. How this differences came about was not explained. It is significant to state that the Defendant has counterclaim for the disputed land. From the foregoing it is obvious that the Defendant’s case lack substance. Adade JSC in the case of Nartey v. Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Press Ltd [1987-1988] 2 GLR pg 314 stated thus: ‘A person who comes to court, no matter what the claim is, must be able to make a good case for the court to consider, otherwise he must fail’. On the evidence, I find that the defendant has failed to lead sufficient evidence, either documentary, oral or otherwise to convince the court on a balance of probabilities that he or his family has title to the subject matter in dispute, I hereby hold that the defendant has failed to prove his title and is therefore not entitled to a declaration of title to the land in dispute. I shall now deal with the final issue: Whether the Plaintiffs have trespassed on Defendant’s land. At paragraphs 5 and 6 of Defendant’s Statement of Defence he stated that: “There is a clear boundary between the Resettlement Township and Host farmers’ village hereinafter called Adonkwanta old town. The Adonkwanta old town was not deserted since the VRA did not eject the host farmers. The Adonkwanta old town was rather re-established by the VRA with clear boundaries with pillars. Nana Obeng Acheampong therefore trespassed into our land by allocating a building plot to Yaw Boakye which is even our old football field.” The plaintiffs have denied this claim stating that the plot of land allocated to Yaw Boakye falls within the 4,714.60 VRA acquired land. In the case of Dzaisu and Others v Ghana Breweries Limited [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 539 at page 545, the Supreme Court per Sophia Adenyira stated as follows: “It is basic principle in the law of evidence that the burden of persuasion on proving all facts essential to any claim lies on whosoever is making the claim.” From the above it means that the Defendant must prove that the plaintiffs indeed trespassed on his land. The following are excerpts of what transpired when Plaintiff crossed examined Defendant on 24/10/2023: Q. I put it to you that where you claim we have trespassed on is within the VRA acquired land. A. That is not true you have trespassed. You went beyond the pillar. Q. I suggest to you that the pillar you are referring to is a pillar indicating a building plot and not a boundary pillar between the VRA and your supposed land. A. I disagree with you. Q. Do you know that beyond the pillar you are talking about the VRA constructed a public toilet there for the community. A. I am aware of the said toilet but it was built for my community before you people were brought on the land. Q. So why did the VRA build a toilet for your community when the area did not fall within the land they acquired. A. The VRA officers stayed with my grandfather whilst building your quarters that was why they built the toilet for us. Q. I further suggest to you that there is another public toilet ahead of your house and it was built by the VRA. A. That is true. Q. Who was living there for the VRA to build that toilet. A. No one lived there. The VRA built it to serve the new community. From the above encounter the Defendant have admitted that the VRA constructed not only one but two toilets within the catchment area of his house, yet he claimed the area has nothing to do with the VRA or was not part of the VRA acquired land. I find as untruthful the Defendant’s claim that the toilet in his community was built by VRA because the officers of the VRA stayed with his father during the construction of the resettlement community. The Defendant have not produced any shred of evidence in support of this claim. Again at paragraph 7 of Defendant’s witness statement he stated that “if the Plaintiff does not know that he has trespassed on Defendant’s land he should find out from officers of the town and country planning department since ignorance of the law is not an excused.” I am sorry to say that it is defendant who claim Plaintiff has trespassed on his land and it is Defendant’s duty to prove his claim by producing sufficient evidence and/or bringing officers of the town and country planning department to court to support his claim. It is not Plaintiff’s duty to go round to look for evidence in support of his opponent’s case. From the record there is no evidence supporting Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff has trespassed on his land. For the reasons above stated defendant’s counterclaim is entirely dismissed and judgment is entered in favour of the plaintiffs as follows: i. It is hereby declared that all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Adonkwanta-Otisu within the Krachi East Municipality of the Oti Region, containing an approximate area of 4,714.60 acres on the North- East by open space measuring 17942.5 feet and 9279.2 feet more or less. On the South-East by open space measuring 3304.1 feet more or less on the South-West by the Kantanka resettlement site and farm land measuring 14024 feet more or less and on the East by the Volta Lake measuring 30,000 feet more or less is a VRA acquired land with plaintiffs as beneficiaries. ii. It is hereby declared that the Plaintiffs has a beneficial interest in the above stated land. iii. The Defendant his servants, agents, workmen, assigns, privies and whosoever claiming through him are hereby perpetually injuncted from interfering with the Plaintiffs occupation, possession and quiet enjoyment of the above land. iv. The Plaintiffs are to recover any portion of the disputed land trespassed upon by Defendant. v. Damages of GH¢2,000.00 is awarded against Defendant vi. Costs of GH¢5,000.00 is awarded in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendant. SGD H/W ALHASSAN DRAMANI DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 30TH NOVEMBER, 2023.