Koranteng v Atebubu Amantin Municipal Chief Executive and Another (C1/20/2021) [2024] GHAHC 552 (20 November 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL COURT “B” (GENERAL JURISDICTION) SUNYANI BONO REGION BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JOYCE BOAHEN ON WEDNESDAYTHE 20TH DAYOF NOVEMBER2024 SUITNO. C1/20/2021 PETERYAW KORANTENG PLAINTIFF VS. 1.ATEBUBUAMANTINMUNICIPAL DEFENDANT CHIEFEXECUTIVE 2.ATEBUBUAMANTINMUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY JUDGMENT Plaintiff present Defendants absent Baffour Okyere Siabour holding brief ofKwabena Poku–Mensah forthe Plaintiff AsareAtuahfor theDefendants absent 1 PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST THEDEFENDANTS The Plaintiff issued awrit ofsummonson24th September, 2020and claimed the following reliefs against theDefendants; a) A declaration that Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu, Atebubu Amantin Municipality, Bono East Region, is the bonafide property of the Plaintiff by reason of having purchased same from one Joshua Mantey who also acquired same from the Atebubu Traditional Council. b) An order of perpetualinjunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, assigns, representatives, workmen, privies and those claiming through, under or by them at custom or in law and in any manner whatsoever from interfering with and / or dealing with Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu, Atebubu Amantin Municipality, Bono East region. c) An order directed at the 2nd Defendant to grant the Plaintiff a building permit to enable him to develop Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu, Atebubu Amantin Municipality, Bono East Region as same is a statutory requirement of law without whichhe cannot develophis plot. d)Damages fortrespass 2 e) Costs f) Suchfurther ordersasthe Honourable Courtmaydeemfit. The Plaintiff’s case is that he acquired the disputed Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu from the former Co-ordinating Director of the Atebubu District Assembly, Joshua Mantey (deceased) on 29th December, 2009 who also acquired the disputed plot from the Atebubu Traditional Council on 1st November, 2007 and handed over all documents on the land to him. He kept the plot in the charge of a caretaker. He recently instructed workers to mould blocks to start construction work on the plot but the 1st Defendant thwarted the efforts of his workers, claimed ownership of the disputed plot and put up notices on the land instructing the Plaintiff’s workmen to vacate the land. The Plaintiff instructed PW1 to acquire a permit on the land for him and PW1 on 10th August, 2020 was issued with a receipt at the Town and Country Planning Department at Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (Ghs 500.00) and he was directedtocome forabuilding permit later. However, on the same day, at about 5:30 pm after official working hours, PW1 was called and asked to return the receipt for payment for the permit and the amount of Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (Ghs 500.00) he paid for the permit was refunded to him and he was denied the building permit. The Plaintiff therefore mounted the present action and prayed for the reliefs indorsed on the writ of summons. The Plaintiff’s case is that the disputed plot is distinct and separate fromtheWorld Visionplot with 3 a barbed wire fence between the two pieces of land. The Plaintiff contends that facing the disputed plot from the main street, the World Vision plot is directly behind with the Ghana National Fire Service (GNFS) to the right. To the left of the disputed plot is a plot owned by one of the sons of the late Omanhene of Atebubu Traditional Area Nana Owusu Achiaw Brempong with a street in between. The Plaintiff stated that his grantor obtained all requisite documentation covering the land including receipts from the relevant statutory institutions in Atebubu and the LandsCommission Sunyani. The Plaintiff contends that after the Atebubu Traditional Council divested its interest in the disputed plot to his grantor the Atebubu Traditional Council had no interest left in the said plot to be given to the 1st Defendant and therefore the Defendants did not acquire any interest in fact or in law from the Atebubu Traditional Council. The Plaintiff tendered exhibits “A” to “L” to substantiate his claims against the Defendants. Exhibit “A” is a site plan in the name of the Plaintiff’s grantor Joshua Mantey for Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu. Exhibit “B” is an allocation note in the name of Joshua Mantey. Exhibit “C” is a statutory declaration executed by Joshua Mantey on 29th December, 2009 transferring the undeveloped Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu to Peter Yaw Koranteng. Exhibit “D” is transfer of Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu to Peter Yaw Koranteng by Joshua Mantey. Exhibit “E” is a lease executed on the disputed plot between the Government of 4 Ghana (GoG) and Joshua Mantey. Exhibit “F” are a series of photographs depicting thecurrent stateofthe disputed land and surrounding boundary marks. Exhibit ‘“G” is a receipt dated 8th November, 2007 issued by the Chief Revenue Superintendent of the Atebubu District Assembly on the disputed plot. Exhibit “H” is a receipt dated 8th November, 2007 issued to Joshua Mantey by the Administrator of Stool Lands. Exhibit “J” series (“J”, “J1” – “J4”) are receipts of processing fee, administrative charges, economic value fees, demarcation fee, all dated 27th January, 2007 in the name of Joshua Mantey issued by the Lands Commission Secretariat on the disputed plot. Exhibits “K” and “K1” are photographs showing blocks moulded by the Plaintiff’s workers on the disputed plot. Exhibit “L” is a letter dated 4th June, 2020 written to the Defendants giving them one month’s notice of the Plaintiff’s intention to commence the present suit. The Plaintiff admitted under cross - examination that exhibit “A” the site plan, and exhibit “B” the allocation note are in the name ofhis grantor Joshua Mantey. That althoughthe plot number is not written on exhibit “B”, it is written on exhibit “A” the site plan. He further admitted that the signatures on exhibits “B” and “C” being Joshua Mantey’s signatures on both documents arenotsimilar. He further admitted that exhibit “C”, the statutory declaration; exhibit “D”, transfer ofPlot No. 21 Block “B”Sector 5 Atebubu and exhibit “E”, the lease are not stamped. He further admitted that there is no signature of the representative of the Government of Ghana (GoG) on the lease because it was being processed at the 5 Lands Commission when his grantor sold the land to him. The Plaintiff’s case is that he exercised due diligence by making enquiries from the Omanhene of Atebubu Traditional Area who sold the plot to Joshua Mantey and the Omanhene gave him the go ahead that he sold the land to Joshua Mantey so he could buy it. After he bought the land over eleven (11) years ago, he hired bulldozers to clear the land without any hindrance from anyone including the Defendants. He weeds the plot twice a year without any hindrance and caused his workers to mould blocks on the land. Thereafterthe Defendants laidadverse claim tothedisputed plot. PWI confirmed the Plaintiff’s evidence that the Plaintiff asked him to acquire permit for him at Atebubu. He confirmed that he went to the Town and Country Planning Office at Atebubu Amantin Municipal Assembly and paid for a building permit assessed at Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (Ghs 500.00). He was issued a receipt and he was asked to return the next day for the permit. However, later the same day, the account officer of the assembly called him on phone between 5:20pm and 5:30pm and asked him to report back to the office. He reported and the Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (Ghs 500.00) he paid for the permit was refunded to him with the explanation that the officer was instructed from above not to issue a building permit for the disputed plot. He tendered exhibits “M” and “M1” dated 10th August, 2020 and 11th August, 2020 showing a cash transaction of Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (Ghs 500.00) PW1 forwarded to the Plaintiff to show that he paid for the permit as the Plaintiff asked him to do. PW2 is the son of the former paramount chief of Atebubu 6 Traditional Area Nana Owusu Achiaw Brempong, a former Plot Allocation CommitteeChariman ofAtebubu fromAugust 2014toJune 2021. He noted that at the instance of the Plaintiff, he inspected the Plaintiff’s documents on the disputed Plot No.21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu Amantin Municipality in the Bono East Region when his father was alive and found that the documents were genuine because his father sold the plot to Joshua Mantey. His further checks at the Atebubu Tradtional Council showed that the Plaintiff is the legal owner of the disputed plot, which he acquired from Joshua Mantey. According to PW2, when Joshua Mantey acquired the disputed plot in the year 2007, the Omanhene did not have all details of plots because during that period, the details of plots were kept with the Town and Country Planning Department. Allocation notes issued then only bore the name of the applicant, purpose of the request, date the request was granted, signature of the Omanehene, signature of the registrar of the traditional council and signature of the applicant. After that, the applicant takes the allocation note to the Town and Country Planning Department for a plot number to be issued, site plan is generatedand sent tothe Omanhene tosign. DEFENDANT’SDEFENCE The 2nd Defendant’s claim is that the plot in dispute was part of a large parcelof land it assisted World Vision International to acquire. According to the 2nd Defendant, World Vision built a wall around the large tract of land leaving the plot in dispute which was retained by the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant contends that it has 7 started the process of acquiring a lease from the Lands Commission and that Joshua Mantey did not own the disputed land to sell it to the Plaintiff. That the disputed plot has always belonged to the 2nd Defendant who had not divested its interest in the disputed plot to any third party. In its evidence-in-chief, the Technical Officer of the 2nd Defendant repeated the 2nd Defendant’s averments on oath and tendered a letter from Lands Commission to show that it had started the process of acquiring a lease from Lands Commission marked as exhibit “1” dated 17th July, 2019. He tendered allocation note dated 16th March, 2015 as exhibit “2”. He also tendered exhibit “3”, site plan signed by the Omanhene of Atebubu Traditional Area and certified by the Physical Planning Officer of Atebubu Amantin Municipal Assembly on Plot No. 21 Block “K” Sector 5 Atebubu for the Atebubu Amantin Municipal Assembly. EVALUATIONOF THE FACTS,EVIDENCE ANDAPPLICATIONOF THELAW The issues set down for trial by the Court differently constituted on 14th June, 2021 areas follows; (a) Whetherthe disputed plot was acquired by thegrantorofthe Plaintiff (b) Whether the disputed plot was acquired by the 2nd Defendant as part of a composite plotforWorld VisionInternational. (c) Whetherthe Plaintiff acquired valid title tothe disputed plotfromhis grantor. 8 (d) Anyotherissue(s) raised onthe pleadings. Sections12(1) and (2)of the Evidence Act 1975(NRCD 323)statesthat; 12(1) “Except as otherwise provided by law the burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderanceof 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.” The Black’s Law Dictionary Tenth Edition by Bryan A. Garner, Editor In Chief at Page1373defines “preponderance oftheevidence”as; “The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other. This is the burden of proof in most civil trials … Also termed preponderance of proof; balance of probability; greater weightof the evidence.” I must admit that there are a myriad of case law on burden of proof in land matters and Counsel for Plaintiff cited numerous of such cases in his well-written address whichis very useful and commendable. Forwant oftime, Iwill cite one ortwo ofthe many cases on the subject. In the case of Dzokui II vs. Adzamli (Decd) (Substituted 9 by) Adzamli and Others [2017 -2020] I Supreme Court of Ghana Law Report (SCGLR) page 663 at 666 holding (2) the Court held in part that; a person in possession and occupation was entitled to the protection of the law against the whole world exceptthe true owner orsomeone who could prove abettertitle. In the case of Abbey vs. Antwi [2010] SCGLR 17 @ 19 and 20 the Court held that in an action for declaration of title to land, the Plaintiff must prove on the preponderance of probabilities, acquisition either by purchase or traditional evidence; or clear and positive acts of unchallenged and sustained possession or substantial user ofthe disputed land. Inthe instant case, the Plaintiff sought toprove his case by tendering in evidence receipt evidencing the scale of the disputed land to his predecessor, Nana Antwi I. Those documents did not mention the name of any person as having made any payment in addition to the payment made by the Plaintiff’s predecessor. On the other hand, the Defendants tendered no such document to support their case of joint purchase that robbed their evidence of any credit and belief. The absence of any documentary evidence by the Defendants relating to the purchase by other persons left it more probable that the Plaintiff’s predecessors had purchased the disputed land from the Duakwa stool. The Plaintiff’s claim has thus been proved on the balance of the probability whilst the Defendant’s claimofjoint ownership stood unproved. In the case of Lizori Ltd vs. Boye and School of Domestic Science and Catering [2013–2014]2SCGLR 889@ 903theCourtstated asfollows; 10 “The provision of section 32 of Act 689 is so clear and unambiguous and required 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 evidence. There is no discretion to admit it in the first place and ask the party to pay the duty and penalty after judgement. Thus the trial court would have been perfectly justified to reject the receipts withoutstamping.” From the evidence proffered by the Plaintiff, he established his root of title to the disputed plot, Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu. That his grantor Joshua Mantey acquired the disputed plot from the Atebubu Traditional Council on 1st November. 2007. He tendered exhibit “B” an allocation note dated 1st November, 2007 in the name of his grantor Joshua Mantey for a building plot from the Atebubu Traditional Council but the plot number was not indicated. Exhibit “B” was signed by the Secretary of the Plot Allocation Committee and the then Omanhene Nana Owusu Akyeaw Brempong I of the Atebubu Traditional Council and the Applicant. PW2, a former Plot Allocation Committee Chairman of Atebubu indicated that during the period that the Plaintiff’s grantor was issued with the allocation note, the Omanhene did not have the detail of the plots. Allocation notes are therefore issued and Applicants take it to the Town and Country Planning Department of the assembly for the site plan to be generated. This assertion of PW2 was refuted and challenged by Counsel for Defendants but the Defendants did not provide any contraryevidence to convince the Court. 11 Although allocation notes I have encountered so far in my work as a judge normally bear plot numbers, I am inclined to believe the assertions of PW2, which he claims was peculiar to Atebubu during the period that the Plaintiff’s grantor applied for the land. Having beena Plot Allocation Committee Chairman before, I have no reasonto doubt his assertions. The Plaintiff further tendered a site plan exhibit “A” in the name of Joshua Mantey his grantor with Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu showing Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5, the plot in dispute and the said site plan is signed by the then Omanhene of Atebubu Traditional Area Nana Owusu Acheaw Brempong I, which ties into the evidence of PW2 regarding the generation of a site plan bearing the plot number. The Plaintiff stated that facing the disputed plot from the main street, the World Vision plot is directly behind with the Ghana National Fire Service (GNFS) to the right. To the left of the disputed plot is a plot owned by one of the sons of the late Omanhene of Atebubu Traditional Area Nana Owusu Achiaw Brempong with a street in between. Although I consider the description of the boundaries of the Plaintiff’s land in his reply as not the usual practice instead of thewrit, I would accept it in theinterestofjustice. The Plaintiff tendered a statutory declaration dated 29th December, 2009 in which his grantor declared that he had transferred ownership of the said plot to him. Exhibit “D” is also evidence of the transfer of the disputed plot by the Plaintiff’s grantor to the Plaintiff dated 29th December, 2009. Exhibit “E” is a lease indicating that the Plaintiff’s grantor was in the process of procuring a lease on the disputed plot he 12 sold to the Plaintiff. The lease is dated 1st January, 2008. Counsel for Defendants challenged exhibits “C”, “D” and “E” under cross-examination of the Plaintiff and emphasized that those exhibits were not stamped. The Court takes notice of the Lizori case cited supra in that regard and holds the view that since exhibits “C”, “D” and “E” were not stamped, the Court cannot put much weight on them. The principle in the Lizori case is that the documents should be stamped before they are tendered. If they are not stamped, they should not be admitted at all. Although exhibits “C”, “D” and “E” have been admitted without stamping by the Court differently constituted, per the Lizori case I am not obliged to put any weight on them. The above notwithstanding, the Plaintiff tendered various receipts exhibits “G”, “H” and “J” series being receipts in the name of his grantor in respect of the disputed land namely; plot allocation fee, rent, processing of the disputed plot, administrative charges on the disputed plot, economic value fee and lease preparation fee respectively. Although the above receipts do not constitute title to the disputed plot, in the Court’s view, they establish some belief in the mind of the Court that the Plaintiff’s grantor acquired the disputed plot and paid various fees incident to the acquisition of the said plot issued by the 2nd Defendant, the Lands commission Secretariat and the Administrator of Stool Lands linking the Plaintiff’s grantor to the disputed plot. The Plaintiff further led evidence to the effect that upon acquisition of the plot, he cleared the land with a bull dozer per exhibit “F” series and kept the plot 13 in the charge of a caretaker. He engaged workers to mould blocks on the land which he established with photographs exhibit “F” series without any hindrance from anyone. Recently the 1st Defendant threatened his workers to vacate the land with an inscription written on the blocks urging his workers to vacate the plot for which reason he mounted this action claiming the reliefs indorsed on his writ of summons against theDefendants. The Defendants on the other hand claimed that the disputed plot belongs to the 2nd Defendant who assisted World Vision to acquire the disputed plot. The 2nd Defendant claims the disputed plot was retained for it after World Vision built a wall around its land. The 2nd Defendant claimed the Plaintiff’s grantor did not have any land in the area to sell to the Plaintiff. The 2nd Defendant tendered exhibit “1”, a letterdated17th July, 2019long afterthe Plaintiff’s grantoracquired the disputed plot on 1st November, 2007 and subsequently acquired by the Plaintiff on 29th December, 2009. The letter is from the Lands Commission indicating a prior application by the 2nd Defendant for the title deed for some plots of land listed in the letter. Item (13) in the letter mentions Plot No. 21 Block “K” Sector 5 Atebubu as stool land. It is interesting to note that the disputed plot is Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu. The Court does not consider this as an error because Plot No. 21 Block “K” and Plot No.21Block “B” arenot thesame. The Defendants tendered exhibit “2” anallocation note dated 16th March, 2015, years after the Plaintiff’s grantor acquired the disputed 14 plot and the Plaintiff’s subsequent acquisition of the disputed plot on 29th December, 2009. The allocation note also has Plot No. 21 Block “K” Sector 5 which I repeat that it is not the same as Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5, the plot in dispute. Interestingly, the front page of exhibit “2” is dated 16th March, 2015 while the back page is dated 16th March, 2018. The allocation note created space for signature of Plot Allocation CommitteeChairman and the Omanhene ofAtebubu Traditional Area but it appears the Omanhene of Atebubu Traditional Area alone signed. There is no signature of the Plot Allocation Committee Chairman but the Applicant (2nd Defendant) signed. What I have been grappling to comprehend about exhibit “2” is the fact that it is dated 16th March, 2015but it was signed on16th March, 2018.The Defendants did not give any explanation regarding the two dates on exhibit “2” to the Court. Therefore, in the light of the inconsistencies regarding the dates on exhibit “2”, the Court doubts its authenticity. Suffice it to say that even if the Court accepts exhibit “2”, it refers to Plot No. 21 Block “K” Sector 5 which is not the plot in dispute. Exhibit “3” also refersto PlotNo.21Block “K”Sector 5and I need notbelabour the point. Counsel for the Plaintiff in an address filed on behalf of the Plaintiff loaded with copious authorities on burden of proof in land matters including the cases of Abbey and Others vs. Antwi [2010] Supreme Court of Ghana Law Report (SCGLR) 17, on where an adversary makes admissions advantageous to the cause of a party. In Re Asere stool [2005 – 2006] SCGLR 637 at 638 which, held that statutory declaration is 15 not a conveyance. Ahadzi and another vs. Sowa and 2 Others [2019 – 2020] SCGLR 637 @ 638 holding (2) and argued that the Plaintiff established his root of title from Joshua Mantey who acquired the plot from the Atebubu Traditional Council. That the Plaintiff recognized the Omanhene of Atebubu Traditional Area as the allodial owner ofthedisputed plot and conducted checks fromhim personally before buying the plot. According to Counsel, the Plaintiff’s acts of ownership and possession over the disputed plot raises a presumption of his ownership of the disputed plot, the Plaintiff also established the identity of the land. According to Counsel, the Plaintiff proffered compelling evidence to establish that he acquired the disputed plot from his grantor Joshua Mantey for which reason Counsel prayed the Court to hold in the Plaintiff’s favour. Regarding the Defendants, Counsel for Plaintiff submitted that the Defendants failed in their pleadings and evidence to establish the identity of the land they claim they own. They did not provide information about when they acquired the land, neither did they give evidence on acts of possession they have exercised over the disputed plot. Counsel contends that whether exhibit “2” the allocation note is dated 16th March, 2015 or 16th March, 2018, it is not a document that bears a tag of validity in its face. The fact that the document is dated 16th March, 2015 and signed on 16th March, 2018 is a grave impeachment of its validity. Counsel noted that the fact that exhibit “2” is not valid was emphasized by the Defendants’ own witness under cross- examination that two signatures were required below the caption “for official use 16 only”, but only one signature appears rendering the entire document invalid. Counsel submitted that the Defendants having acknowledged the Plaintiff’s grantor’s right of ownership and having issued various documents to the Plaintiff’s grantor to that effect cannot now seek to deny the Plaintiff’s undoubted ownership ofthe disputed plot. Counsel for Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff’s case hinges on exhibits “B”, “C”, “D” and “E” which seek to transfer interest in the disputed land to the Plaintiff but the said documents are not stamped under the Stamp Duty Act. Counsel contends that the allocation note did not create any interest in the disputed property in favour of Joshua Mantey for Joshua Mantey to execute exhibit “C”, the statutory declaration for the Plaintiff. That the said statutory declaration is not a registered document in the Land Registry Act and it is also not a deed of conveyance purporting to create interest in land. Exhibit “E” is not a lease properly so called because it does not have a commencement and expiry date. It therefore does not create any interest in the Plaintiff. Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff failed to prove his case. The Defendants on the other hand led evidence to the effect that the plot in dispute belongs to the 2nd Defendant who has not divested its interest in the said plot to a third party. Counsel contends that the 2nd Defendant established its defence with exhibits “1”,“2”and “3”. 17 CONCLUSION Upon considering the totality of the evidence proffered by the parties and written addresses of Counsel for the parties, the applicable authorities cited above, and on the preponderance of probabilities, the Court holds the view that evidence adduced by the Plaintiff is not only weightier but superior and convincing than the evidence adduced by theDefendants. The Court is convinced that evenif;  The unstamped exhibits of the Plaintiff, that is exhibit “C”, statutory declaration, exhibit “D”, transfer of plot document and exhibit “E”the lease are excluded from the Plaintiff’sevidence,  The allocation note, the site plan although not conveyances, the various receipts issued by the 2nd Defendant, Lands Commission Secretariat and the Administrator ofStoolLandstothe Plaintiff’sgrantor,  The Plaintiff’s acts of possession on the land by clearing the land, putting a caretaker in charge of the land, by moulding blocks which are currently on the land perexhibit “F”series and  The Plaintiff’s exercise of control over the disputed land since he bought it in the year2009will inure tothe Plaintiff’sbenefit. 18 It is therefore the Court’s considered view that the Plaintiff led sufficient evidence to convince the Court that Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu was acquired by his grantor Joshua Mantey from the Atebubu Traditional Council and his grantor subsequently sold it tohim. He also established that he acquired a valid title from his grantor Joshua Mantey. It is useful to add that Plot No. 21 Block “K” Sector 5 Atebubu being claimed by the Defendants is not the same as the plot in dispute, Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu in the present case. The evidence adduced by the Defendants failed to prove that the 2nd Defendant acquired the disputed plot, Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5Atebubuas partofacomposite plotfor World Vision International. In awarding damages to the Plaintiff, the Court holds the view that upon the Plaintiff’s ability to establish his burden of proof regarding title to the disputed land and the fact that the 1st Defendant threatened the Plaintiff’s workers to vacate the disputed land, entitles the Plaintiff to damages against the Defendants. In awarding cost to the Plaintiff, the Court considered Order 74 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I 47. The Court considered the length of the case from when it was filed on24th September,2020, adjournments, reasonable cost incurred by the Plaintiff in prosecuting the case. The fact that the Plaintiff engaged Counsel throughout the trial, cost awarded to the Plaintiff during the trial and the fact that theDefendant also incurred cost indefending the suit among others. 19 In the light of the foregoing, the Court is of a considered view that the Plaintiff established his case on the preponderance of probabilities and the Court hereby entersjudgment in favourofthe Plaintiff asfollows; a. The Court hereby declares that Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu Amantin, Amantin Municipality, Bono East Region is the bonafide property of the Plaintiff by reasonof having purchased same fromJoshua Mantey who also acquired same fromtheAtebubu Traditional Council. b. The Court hereby grants an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, assigns, representatives, workmen, privies and those claiming through, under or by them at custom or in law and/or dealing with Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu, Atebubu Amantin Municipality, Bono East Region. c. An order is hereby directed at the 2nd Defendant to grant the Plaintiff a building permit to enable him to develop Plot No. 21 Block “B” Sector 5 Atebubu Amantin Municipality, Bono East Region as same is a statutory requirement of law without whichhe cannot develophis plot. d. The Court awards the Plaintiff Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS 10,000.00) as damagesfor trespass. 20 e. Cost of Forty Thousand Ghana Cedis (Ghs 40,000.000) is awarded in the Plaintiff’s favour. (SGD) JUSTICEJOYCE BOAHEN HIGHCOURTJUDGE 20TH NOVEMBER2024 21