KODJOE VRS ATOYIRE (LD/0390/2021) [2024] GHAHC 25 (20 March 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (LAND DIVISION 10) HELD AT ACCRA ON WEDNESDAY THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWAME GYAMFI OSEI SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE MONTE CRISTO CHAMBERS H/NO. 178, ASAFOANYE O. BRONI CRESCENT, RINGWAY ESTATE OSU-ACCRA VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE TESHIE-NUNGUA ACCRA SUIT NO: LD/0390/2021 : PLAINTIFF : DEFENDANT J U D G M E N T The Plaintiff, claimed to have acquired the disputed land from the State Housing Corporation in 1992. After the acquisition he permitted the Defendant’s father to stay on the land. The said father constructed a wooden structure in which he lived with his family and also farmed on a portion of the land. According to the Plaintiff after the death of the Defendant’s father, he intimated to the Defendant that he would now need his land for development. Surprisingly the Defendant denied his title by claiming that his deceased father acquired the land from the Nungua Stool in his own right and this has compelled the Plaintiff to mount the present action for the following reliefs; “ a. Declaration of title to all that parcel of land in extent 0.16 hectares (0.38 of an acre) more or less being parcel No. 70 Block 11 Section Page 1 of 19 SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE 074 situate at Teshie/Nungua Estate in the Greater Accra Region as delineated on Registry Map No. 002/074/1992 in the Land Title Registry , Accra. b. Recovery of Possession c. General Damages for trespass d. An order for the demolition of all unauthorized structures on the land. e. Perpetual Injunction” The Defendant in his defence contended that his father was not the caretaker for the Plaintiff but a grantee of the Nungua Stool. He said his father was given an indenture by the said stool and they have been in uninterrupted possession of same till his father passed. The Defendant further maintained that he has not seen the Plaintiff on the land till this action was instituted. The Defendant further claimed that in all the searches he conducted the Plaintiff’s name did not come up and since the Plaintiff is not related to any of the people whose names came up, the Plaintiff lacks the capacity to institute the present action. The Defendant said the Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs. The issues adopted for determination were “a) Whether or not the Plaintiff acquired the land in dispute from the State Housing Corporation (now State Housing Company Ltd.) b) Whether or not the Nungua Stool has legal right to give the land in dispute to the Defendant’s father. c) Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim. d) Any other issues arising from the pleadings.” SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 2 of 19 I intend to discuss the only issue “a” and “b” because issue “c” has been held to be no issue which ought to be settled by a court of law as same is superfluous per the decision of Supreme Court in the case of DALEX FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD VRS EBENEZER DENZEL AMANOR & 2 ORS [2012] 171 GMJ 256 at 304. BURDEN OF PROOF As in all civil suits, the onus of proof first rests on the party whose positive assertions have been denied by his opponent. Depending on the admissions made or denied, the party on whom the burden of proof lies is enjoined by the provisions of Sections 10, 11(4), 12 and 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) to lead such credible and admissible evidence such that on the totality of the evidence on record, the court would find that party's version of the rival accounts more probable than its non-existence. In this case even though the Defendant did not make any counterclaim against the Plaintiff and ordinarily are not supposed to prove their defence, once they have chosen to deny or contest the claims made against them by the Plaintiff, they would be required to lead evidence, if the Plaintiff adduces sufficient evidence which support his claims. In that event they would help their cause if they lead contrary evidence to avoid a ruling being made against them by this court. In the case of RE ASHALLEY BOTWE LANDS: ADJETEY AGBOSU & ORS vrs KOTEY & ORS [2003-04] SCGLR 420, Brobbey Jsc (as he then was) succinctly stated the position in these terms; “The hackneyed common law principle has always been that a defendant in a civil case assumes no onus of proof and, indeed, is said to be under no obligation to prove his defence. Serious inroads have however been created in this principle by two sections in NRCD 323. The first is section 11(1) which states that: SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 3 of 19 “11. (1) For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling against him on the issue.” The second is Section 14 which reads: “14. Except as otherwise provided by law, unless and until it is shifted a party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or non-existence of which is essential to the claim or defence he is asserting.” These Sections of NRCD 323 clearly require a Defendant who wishes to win his case to lead evidence on issues he desires to be ruled in his favour. The effect of Sections 11(1) and 14 and similar Sections in NRCD 323 may be described as follows: “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 that determination depends on evaluation of facts and evidence, the Defendant must realise 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. The logical sequel to this is that if he leads no such facts or evidence, the court will be left with no choice but to evaluate the entire case on the basis of the evidence before the court, which may turn out to be only the evidence of the Plaintiff. If the court chooses to believe the only evidence on the record, the Plaintiff may win and the Defendant may lose. Such loss may be brought about by default on the part of the Defendant. In the light of the statutory provisions, literally relying on the SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 4 of 19 common law principle that the Defendant does not need to prove any defence and therefore does not need to lead any evidence may not always serve the best interest of the litigants, even if he is a Defendant.” The standard of proof for both parties is proof on the balance of Preponderance of Probabilities as stipulated under Section 12 of the Evidence Act 1975 [NRCD 323]. The said section states as follows; “Section 12—Proof by a Preponderance of the Probabilities. (1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities. (2) "Preponderance of the probabilities" means that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non- existence.” Lastly the burden of producing evidence is not static but shifts depending on the issues admitted or denied. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PLAINTIFF The Plaintiff’s evidence-in-chief as captured in his witness statement is as follows; “1. My name is Samuel Nartey Kodjoe. 2. 3. 4. I am a lawyer by profession and I live at Teshie. I know the Defendant as the son of Mr. Atoyire (deceased). The late Mr. Atoyire was the caretaker of the land the subject matter of the suit. SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 5 of 19 5. On the 10th of August 1992, while working with the State Construction Corporation I applied to the State Housing Corporation (Now State Housing Co. Ltd.) for the release to me of plot No. 14 Guava Street, Teshie Nungua Estate. I attach the application letter hereto as Exhibit ‘A’. 6. After I had some correspondence with them, State Housing Corporation released the said plot to me at a price of Six Hundred and Fifty Thousand Old Cedis (₵650,000.00) in a letter dated 25th November 1993. I paid the amount in full together with ground rent of ₵4,000.00. I attach the letter and the receipt for payment as Exhibit ‘B’ & ‘B1’. I also paid ₵5,000.00 for site Plan preparation, the receipt of which is attached as Exhibit ‘B2’. 7. After the payment I was issued with an indenture in the form of a lease document dated 29th November 1996 for the unexpired residue of a term of 60 years with effect from 8th August 1994. I attach a copy of the lease document as Exhibit ‘C’. 8. In 2007, I registered my interest in the land with the Land Tile Registry (now the Registration Division of the Lands Commission) and I was issued with Land Certificate No. GA25308 dated 13th day of November 2007. A copy of the land certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit ‘D’. 9. The land covers an area of 0.16 hectares (or 0.38 of an acre) and consist of all that parcel of land in extent 0.16 hectare (0.38 of an acre) more or less being Parcel No. Block 11 Section 074 situate at Teshie/Nungua Estate in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana aforesaid as delineated on Registry Map No. 002/074/1992 in the Land Title Registry, Victoriaborg, Accra and being the piece or parcel of land shown and edged with pink colour on Plan No. 59/2007 annexed to the Certificate except and reserved Page 6 of 19 SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE all minerals, oil, precious stones and timber whatsoever upon or under the said piece or parcel of land. 10. After I had paid the land and had obtained the lease from the State Housing Corporation, I put the Defendant’s father affectionately called ‘Tiger’ to do vegetable farming on the land as the land was near the water drain usually referred to as the ‘Sango Lagoon’. 11. The Defendant’s father was awfully loyal to me and he reported to me any attempts at encroachment by trespassers or intruders. Anytime he informed me, I quickly responded. 12. On one occasion some guys from Nungua confronted him that the land was Nungua Stool land so he should vacate. When he reported the matter to me, I confronted the guys and warned them off the land and told them the land belonging to the State Housing Corporation and not the Nungua Stool and the State Housing Corporation has leased it to me. 13. On another occasion, the Defendant’s father drew my attention to the installation of pillars around a vast area of the Estate where my land was situated covering my land by Starlife Assurance Co. Ltd. I followed up to the Starlife Assurance offices and informed them that the area they had fenced covered my land which had been released to me by the State Housing Corporation earlier in time. They later removed their pillars. 14. Then in 2006, the Defendant’s father brought me a letter written by the Executive Director of the Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission to the Teshie Office of Accra Metropolitan Assembly complaining about the structures the Defendant’s father had put up on the land and requested for SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 7 of 19 his ejectment and demolition of the structure. Copy of letter attached as Exhibit ‘E’. 15. I followed up and met the said director and informed him that the land belonged to me and I allowed the Defendant’s father to stay on the land. I also went to the Teshie office of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly and told them that the land belonged to me and showed them my documents of title to the land. So the structures were not demolished and the Defendant’s father continued to live there with the Defendant. 16. Sometime in 2015, when I visited the land, I took pictures of the structures as they existed on my land. Pictures attached as Exhibit ‘F’ series. 17. In 2015 or 2016, I offered my land to my tennis club, Regional Maritime Tennis Club to use the land temporarily for construction of a tennis court when the club was being threatened with eviction by the Maritime University. In fact, I took some of the members there to examine the land and they agreed to its suitability for a tennis court. This did not materialize because the Maritime University later withdrew the threat and allowed the club to continue to use their tennis court so the club is still playing tennis there. 18. The Defendant’s father, Atoyire (aka Tiger) died recently and left the Defendant and his siblings residing in the wooden structures on the land. I kept on vising the land, then one day when I visited the land, I informed the Defendant that I wanted to develop the land so he and his siblings should vacate. They did not. SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 8 of 19 19. In November 2020, when I visited the land, I realised that the Defendant was converting the wooden temporary structures into a permanent structure by using sandcrete blocks. When I question the Defendant why he was converting the temporary structures into a permanent structure without my permission he claimed that the land belonged to his late father. 20. I took pictures of the construction then going on and I attach them as Exhibit ‘G’ series. 21. I informed the Ledzokuku Municipal Assembly of the construction going on without permit and the Assembly wrote on the block work “STOP WORK PRODUCE PERMIT’ the Defendant paid no heed, rubbed the warning off and continue with construction. 22. When I realized that the Defendant wanted to use force to take my land, I instituted this action against him. 23. The Defendant’s assertion that the land belonged to the Nungua Stool and his father acquired it from the Nungua Stool is not true. 24. I say that my land in issue forms part of a large tract of land acquired by the State in 1968 for the State Housing Corporation (now Company) for the development of houses for the general public, thus named “Teshie Nungua Estate”. 25. The said acquisition by the State is covered by Executive Instrument No. 33 of 1968 entitled “State Lands (Teshie- Nungua Site for Ghana Housing Estate) Instrument 1968”. A copy of the said instrument is attached hereto as Exhibit ‘H’. The Nungua Stool cannot lawfully give this land to the Defendant’s father. SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 9 of 19 26. I say that from the day that the land was given to me I was in possession of the land and I have visited the Defendant’s father and his children on several occasions. Even when the Defendant’s father took ill and remained indoors for a long time, I visited him. The Defendant is only feigning ignorance because of this suit. In fact, when I met the Defendant on the land and informed him to vacate, I asked him “don’t you know me” and he answered “I know you, you have been coming to see my father”. 27. I say that I am the bonafide owner of the land. I did not collect any rent from the Defendant’s father because he was a caretaker of the land for me. In his further evidence contained in his supplementary witness statement he continued as follows “1. My name is Samuel Nartey Kodjoe. 2. 3. 4. 5. I am a lawyer by profession and I live at Teshie. On 19th July 2021, I filed a witness statement in the suit. This witness statement is supplementary to the one I filled on 19th July 2021. In my original witness statement, I stated that the State Housing Corporation released the land in issue to me after some correspondence. 6. I say that included in the correspondence the State Housing Corporation gave me was a formal offer letter which is annexed hereto as Exhibit ‘J’ and a certificate of right of entry to the land which is also annexed hereto as Exhibit ‘K’. SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 10 of 19 7. Under cross examination I was asked whether I was given a formal offer letter and I responded in the affirmative but said further that I had misplaced it. 8. After a diligent search since the hearing, I found the offer letter together with right of entry and wish to be part of my evidence in chief. 9. That the land is truly mine and the Defendant or his father has no title to the land.” Before I evaluate his evidence I would also reproduce the evidence led by the Defendant and then compare and contrast the two accounts to ascertain which of them is more probable than the other relative to the issues settled for determination. EVIDENCE LED BY THE DEFENDANT The Defendant testified as follows; “1. I say that my late father is the bonafide owner of the land situate and lying at Teshie/Nungua Estate in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. 2. 3. I say that my late father did domestic farming on the said land. I say that my late father on his own put up temporary structures on the land to house my siblings and me without the authorization or assistance from any person including the Plaintiff. I further say that my late father at all material times maintain himself as the landlord and did not acknowledge any person including the Plaintiff as his landlord. 4. That my late father took a grant of lease from the Nungua Stool after the Nungua Stool had made him conduct searches at the Lands Commission. SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 11 of 19 5. I say that to this end, the said land was indentured and my late parents, my siblings and I had been in uninterrupted possession of the said land for all these years. 6. I further say that my late father has never been the Plaintiff’s caretaker and informant. 7. That my late father initially put up a temporary structure on the said land until same was leased to him. 8. I say that my late father is the bonafide owner of the land and no one has ever approached us from any of the organizations referred therein. 9. I say that the Plaintiff informed me that the said land is his and so my siblings and I should vacate. 10. I further say that until the service of the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on me, I have never met the Plaintiff in this his litigant position, let alone to engage in any conversation. 11. That it was until my mother recently also passed away that the Plaintiff was alleged to have come around with other sympathizers. 12. I say that Plaintiff has never known my siblings and me, until this instant litigation. 13. I say that whiles my mom was alive, she only remembered the Plaintiff taking gift of vegetables from my late father. That my siblings and I had no knowledge of the Plaintiff giving the said land to my late father as a caretaker. SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 12 of 19 14. I further say that it is wicked lie for Plaintiff to assert that the said land belongs to him when throughout the lifetime of my late father, the Plaintiff has never been seen there, save Nungua Stool leaders. 15. I further say that the said official search results showed that there was an assignment from State Housing Corporation to one Francis Khalil who made further assignments. 16. I strongly contend that nowhere has the Plaintiff’s name ever come up and that the Plaintiff lacks the capacity to commence this instant action as he is no lawful representative of any of the parties revealed in the search neither has he any legal or equitable interest therein. 17. That I contend strongly that this action is frivolous and mischievous on the Plaintiff’s part to deny my sibling and I what our late parents had so labored for over the years. 18. I deny that I am trespasser who wants to appropriate land, which does not belong to my late father or me. I further say that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any of his reliefs as endorsed on the Writ of Summons and/or at all. EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES. The evidence led to support issue “a” is that he applied to the State Housing Corporation in 1992 for the release of the disputed land to him and same was granted. He supported that evidence with the application letter which is marked Exhibit “A” and dated 10th August 1992. Following the application SHC offered Plot No. 14 Guava Street, Teshie Nungua Housing Estate by a letter dated 23rd June 1994 to the Plaintiff at the price of ₵650,000.00 which he accepted. He was made to pay a total amount of ₵650,000.00 to the said Corporation. The offer letter was tendered and marked Exhibit “J”. Exhibit “B1” is SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 13 of 19 the receipt indicating the payment of the said amount. Exhibit “B2” is the receipt issued to the Plaintiff for the payment of money for the preparation of a site plan. SHC approved the application in a letter dated 25th November 1993 and marked as Exhibit “B”. Exhibit “C” is the Lease Agreement executed by the said entity and the Plaintiff. It has a duration of sixty years commencing 8th August 1994. The Plaintiff was also granted right of entry by SHC on the 8th of August 1994. This was marked as Exhibit “K”. Exhibit “D” is the Land Title Certificate issued in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff further tendered Exhibit “H” which is the STATE LANDS (TESHIE-NUNGUA-SITE FOR GHANA HOUSING ESTATE) INSTRUMENT 1968. The Plaintiff said this is the acquisition instrument which was used to acquire the land for SHC a portion thereof leased to the Plaintiff by that entity. The Plaintiff’s claim that he acquired the disputed land is supported by the said Exhibits. The proximity of the disputed plot to the Teshie-Nungua Estate corroborates the Plaintiff’s claim that the land forms part of the land acquired by the Government through the STATE LANDS (TESHIE-NUNGUA-SITE FOR GHANA HOUSING ESTATE) INSTRUMENT 1968. See the Site Plan attached to Exhibit “A”. In my view the Plaintiff has provided enough evidence in proving issue “a” and as a result the burden of producing shall shift to the Defendant to adduce evidence to prove issue “b” . In his evidence he testified to the effect that the land was acquired by his deceased father and tendered Exhibit “1” and an indenture executed by the Gborbu Wulomo and the Mankralo & acting Nungua Mantse on the 20th of June 2012. The document i.e. Exhibit “1” which is a document affecting land has not been stamped or registered. Even though it was executed on the 20th of June 2012, the oath of proof is dated 25th August 2012 whilst the certificate of proof is dated 25th August 2020. Since that document is unstamped it cannot form part of the evidence and same is excluded from the evidence per the express SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 14 of 19 provisions of Section 32 of the Stamp Duty Act 2005 [ Act 689] and Section 8 of the Evidence Act 1975 [ N.R.C.D 323]. In the case of LIZORI LTD VRS BOYE & SCHOOL OF DOMESTIC SCIENCE & CATERING [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 889. In the case Benin JSC speaking for the Supreme Court expressed the position as follows; “Indeed this has statutory backing in section 32 of the Stamp Act, 2005 (Act 689). It provides: 1) Where an instrument chargeable with a duty is produced as evidence (a) in a court in a civil matter; or (b) before an arbitration or referee, the judge, arbitrator or referee, shall take notice of an omission or insufficiency of the stamp on the instrument. 2) If the instrument is one which may legally be stamped after its execution, it may, on payment of the unpaid duty to the registrar of the Court or to the arbitrator or referee, and the penalty payable on stamping that instrument, be received in evidence subject to just exceptions on other grounds. 3) An instrument which is sufficiently stamped under this Act shall be receivable in evidence although that instrument may not have been stamped or is insufficiently stamped according to the law in force in the place where that instrument was executed...................... 6) Except as expressly provided in this section, an instrument (a) executed in Ghana; or (b) executed outside Ghana but relating to property situate or to any matter or thing done or to be done in Ghana; shall, except in criminal proceedings, not be given in evidence or be available for any purpose unless it is stamped in accordance with the law in force at the time when it was first executed. (emphasis supplied)” This provision is so clear and unambiguous and requires no interpretation. Either the document has been stamped and appropriate duty paid in accordance with the law in force at the time it was executed or it should not be admitted in SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 15 of 19 evidence. There is no discretion to admit it in the first place and ask the party to pay the duty and penalty after judgment. With the exclusion of this document what is left is the bare assertion by the Defendant that the disputed land belongs to his father. A bare assertion in the witness box does not amount to prove. In the case of T. K. SEBEH & CO. LTD VRS MENSAH [2005-2006] SCGLR 341 at 360, Date-Bah Jsc( as he then was) stated the position thus “for however credible a witness may be, his bare assertion on oath or the repetition of his averments in the witness box cannot constitute proof” Bare assertion without more has never found favour with the courts where corroborative evidence or other evidence could be adduced to substantiate a bare assertion. Numo Borketey Laweh Tsuru the Gborbu Wulumo Shitse and Nii Bortabi Obroni, the Mankralo who allegedly granted the land could have been called by the Defendant to give evidence for him but he did not call them. If they are deceased they could still have gotten those who took over from them to give evidence but same did not happen. Even in that case the grant would have been void because the disputed land forms part of the land compulsorily acquired by the State. Such acquisitions extinguish all titles.The evidence is also clear that the Defendant’s father lived in a temporal structure made of wood during his lifetime. If indeed his father had the means to acquire the disputed land he would have at least constructed a one room permanent structure on the land but he never did. The learned Jurist Ollennu J(as he then was) in the case MAJOLAGBE v. LARBI & ORS. [1959] GLR 190-195 defined what amounted to prove in law in these terms; “Proof, in law , is the establishment of fact by proper legal means; in other words, the establishment of an averment by admissible evidence. Where a party makes an averment, and his averment is denied, he is unlikely to SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 16 of 19 be held by the Court to have sufficiently proved that averment by his merely going into the witness-box, and repeating the averment on oath, if he does not adduce that corroborative evidence which (if his averment be true) is certain to exist. Here I may repeat what I stated in the case of Khoury and anor. V. Richter on this question of proof. That judgment was delivered on the 8th December, 1958, and the passage in question is as follows:- “Proof in law is the establishment of facts by proper legal means. Where a party makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way, e.g. by producing documents, description of things, reference to other facts, instances, or circumstances, and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the witness-box and repeating that averment on oath, or having it repeated on oath by his witness. He proves it by producing other evidence of facts and circumstances, from which the Court can be satisfied that what he avers is true.” If this yardstick is applied to the evidence led by the Defendant one would observe that the Defendant’s evidence falls short. Before I decide whose case is more probable, I would refer to this dictum by Wood Jsc (as she then was) in the case of MONDIAL VENEER (GH)LTD VRS AMUAH GYEBU XV [2011] 1 SCGLR 466 at 475 where she stated as follows “ 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 his root of SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 17 of 19 title , mode of acquisition and various acts of possession exercised over the subject matter of litigation” From the analysis done supra the Plaintiff was able to prove his root of title, mode of acquisition and acts of ownership and possession. On the contrary the Defendant failed to prove hi root of title, mode of acquisition. He only proved his possession of the land which has been explained away by the Plaintiff. His father was granted a licence to stay on the land and by virtue of that he had some “possession”. That licence has since been revoked by the Plaintiff. I hold in the premise that the Plaintiff did acquire the disputed land from SHC. The Defendant’s claim that he acquired the disputed land from the Nungua Stool is not credible and is improbable. On the totality of the evidence led the Plaintiff ought to be entitled to the reliefs he seeks from this court. I therefore proceed to enter judgment for the Plaintiff as follows. I declare the Plaintiff as the rightful owner of all that parcel of land in extent 0.16 hectares (0.38 of an acre) more or less being Parcel No. 70 Block 11 Section 074 situate at Teshie/Nungua Estate in the Greater Accra Region as delineated on Registry Map No. 002/074/1992 in the Land Title Registry , Accra. I grant the Plaintiff an order to recover all that parcel of land in extent 0.16 hectares (0.38 of an acre) more or less being Parcel No. 70 Block 11 Section 074 situate at Teshie/Nungua Estate in the Greater Accra Region as delineated on Registry Map No. 002/074/1992 in the Land Title Registry , Accra. With regard to relief ‘C’ the Defendant became a trespasser from November 2020 when without the consent of the Plaintiff he started converting the wooden structure into a permanent structure and refused to vacate the land. Trespass is an injury against possession and same is at large without proof of actual damage. Having regard that the SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 18 of 19 Defendant has erected offensive structures on the land there would be the need to remove the said structures from the land. I award general damages of GH¢10,000 against the Defendant. On relief “d” I grant the Plaintiff an order to demolish the structures on the land. I perpetually restrain the Defendant, his assigns, workmen, siblings, successors, etc from interfering with all that parcel of land in extent 0.16 hectares (0.38 of an acre) more or less being Parcel No. 70 Block 11 Section 074 situate at Teshie/Nungua Estate in the Greater Accra Region as delineated on Registry Map No. 002/074/1992 in the Land Title Registry, Accra. I award costs of GH¢10,000.00 against the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff. (SGD) JUSTICE KWAME GYAMFI OSEI JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT LAND DIVISION (10) COUNSEL: BLISS NII AMARTEI FOR PLAINTIFF DAVID OWUSU TACHIE FOR DEFENDANT SUIT NO. LD/0390/2021 SAMUEL NARTEY KODJOE VRS ISAAC ATOYIRE Page 19 of 19