OPOKU VRS WENCHI METHODIST SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL & 2 OTHERS (C1/6/2013) [2024] GHAHC 215 (4 July 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE WENCHI, BONO REGION, HELD ON THURSDAY THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024, BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FREDERICK A.W.K. NAWURAH. SUIT NO. C1/6/13 KWAME OPOKU VRS. 1. WENCHI METHODIST SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 2. ADU DAMOAH, ASSISTANT HEADMASTER, WENCHI SHS 3. AGYENIM BOATENG @ ATTA KOFI (FARMER) JUDGMENT The plaintiff, a property or real estate developer, per his writ of summons, claims against the defendants a declaration of title and recovery of possession of Plots Nos. 8A and 8B Block ‘A’ Sector 2, Wenchi. The plaintiff also prays for general damages for trespass, and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, workmen and assigns from interfering with his title and possession of the said plots of land. The plaintiff’s case is that sometime in the year 2000 he was customarily granted two plots of land, situate at a place where the Colonial Government bungalows were located, by the Wenchi Traditional Council and he paid the necessary customary ‘drink’ to the Council. Subsequently, on the 10th of April, 2003, he formally applied for the said plots from the Wenchi Traditional Council and the customary grant made earlier on to him was regularized and approved by the Traditional Council acting by the late Omanhene Ampem Osagyefo Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo VI in conjunction with the then Wenchi District Assembly. He was then issued with the relevant site plan on the said plot numbers 8A and 8B Block 'A' Sector 2, Wenchi, which were duly endorsed by the Omanhene and President of the Wenchi Traditional Area/Council, 1 and he has been paying the necessary fees to the Wenchi Traditional Council and the Wenchi Traditional Assembly. According to the plaintiff, the said plots were situate at a place where Colonial Government bungalows were located but the Government later relinquished the vacant portions of the land there to the Wenchi Traditional Council which demarcated same into building plots and allocated same to prospective developers, including him, and most of the allotees of the said plots have developed their plots. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant (the Wenchi Senior Secondary School) and its agents are laying adverse claim to the two plots and are interfering with his work and that of his agents on the plot. The plaintiff avers that the 2nd and 3rd defendants, purporting to be acting on behalf of the 1st defendant, stopped and drove away agents whom he sent to work on the said plots. The plaintiff avers that the defendants’ claim to the land is apparently based on the fact that staff of the 1st defendant school occupy some of the Colonial Government bungalows at that place. The plaintiff maintains that the defendants will not refrain from their acts of trespass on the land unless they are restrained by an order of this Honourable Court. The defendants, on their part, completely deny the plaintiff’s claims to ownership of the two plots of land and maintain that the said plots are the bonafide property of the 1st defendant school and form part of the land on which the school’s staff bungalows are situate, i.e. plot number 8 Block A Sector 2, Wenchi. The defendants urge upon the Court that it is rather the plaintiff who has trespassed unto the 1st defendant school’s land. 2 The defendants further contend that all land ownership documents to the land that are in the plaintiff’s possession or custody are fake documents that were recently procured. It is the defendants’ case that the plaintiff’s claim to the land in dispute is borne out of forged documents and, therefore, fraudulent. The defendants therefore counterclaim for a declaration of title and recovery of possession of those parts of plot number 8 Block A Sector 2, Wenchi, that the plaintiff is laying claim to. They also pray for an order of the Court cancelling all documents bearing plot numbers 8A and 8B Block 'A' Sector 2, Wenchi, general damages for trespass, and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff his, agents, assigns workmen etc., from interfering in any way with plot number 8 Block 'A' Sector 2, Wenchi. The plaintiff, per his reply and defence to defendants’ counterclaim, confirmed that the former headmasters and staff of the 1st defendant school lived in some of the bungalows near the disputed plots of land but he maintains that these were Government bungalows that were allocated to the 1st defendant school for the occupation of their personnel by the then Wenchi District Council (now Wenchi Municipal Assembly) and, therefore, the 1st defendant school occupied the bungalows and the immediate surrounding lands as licencees of the Wenchi District Council and not as owners thereof. The plaintiff specifically denied all the other claims of the defendants’ and generally joined issue with them on all averments in their statement of defence and counterclaim. From the pleadings of the parties, the fundamental issues the parties set out for this Court to decide were as follows: (a) Whether or not the plots in dispute were customarily granted to the plaintiff by the Wenchi Traditional Council in the year 2000. 3 (b) Whether or not the customary grant made to the plaintiff earlier on was regularized and approved by the Traditional Council in conjunction with the then Wenchi District Assembly. (c) Whether or not the plaintiff has deposited thirty (30) trips of sand and eight thousand (8,000) blocks on the disputed plots. (d) Whether or not the defendants have trespassed upon plaintiff’s land. (e) Whether or not the land in dispute belongs to the Wenchi Methodist Senior High School. (f) Whether or not the land in dispute and the bungalows thereon were granted to the Wenchi Methodist Senior High School at the inception of the school in the early 1960s. (g) Whether or not the first adverse claim of the land was made by one Rosina Nuamah as recent as 2013. (h) Whether or not the Municipal Assembly and the Wenchi Traditional Council advised the plaintiff to desist from his adverse claim. (i) Whether or not the documents in the possession of the plaintiff are fake and procured only recently. (j) Whether or not the claim of the plaintiff to the land in dispute is borne out of forged documents and therefore fraudulent. 4 (k) Whether or not Plot Nos. 8A and 8B Block ‘A’ Sector 2, Wenchi are in existence. (l) Whether or not the plaintiff has colluded with one Emmanuel Oppong as recent as 2000 to alter the site plan of Plot No. 8 Block ‘A’ Sector 2, Wenchi, to read Plot Nos. 8A and 8B Block ‘A’ Sector 2, Wenchi. (m) Whether or not this matter was resolved in favour of the 1st defendant by the Regional Coordinating Council in Sunyani and again by the Municipal Town and Country Planning Office, Wenchi. In civil cases, the general rule is that the party who in his pleadings or his writ raises issues essential to the success of his case assumes the onus of proof [See section 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323); Faibi v. State Hotels Corporation [1968] GLR 471; Bank of West Africa Ltd. v. Ackun [1963] 1 GLR 176 SC]. On the other hand, with regards to the defendants’ counter-claim, it is settled law that the defendants are not bound to counterclaim against the plaintiff. However, if a defendants put in a counterclaim it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court, as a counterclaim is an independent action. See Order 12 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) C.I. 47; Fosuhene v. Wusu [2011] 32 GMJ 163 SC. A counterclaim is, therefore, a distinct and separate action on its own which must also be proved according to the same standard of proof required by sections 11 and 14 of NRCD 323 OF Evidence Act (1975). Thus, where in an action, the parties claim and counterclaim for declaration of title to the same piece of land, each party bears the onus of proof as to which side has a better claim of title against his adversary, for a counter claimant is as good as a plaintiff in 5 respect of a property which he claims to be his own. See Osei v. Korang [2013] 58 GMJ 1 at page 22. Apart from the claims for recovery of possession and injunction by the plaintiff, both the plaintiff and the defendants claim principally a declaration of title to land. So although the burden lay on the plaintiff to prove his claim in order to succeed, the defendants also had the particular burden of producing evidence to substantiate their claim. Proof on the preponderance of probabilities which is the required standard of proof in civil cases lay on both the plaintiff as claimant and the defendants as the counter-claimants. Thus, in Takoradi Flour Mills v. Samir Faris [2005-2006] SCGLR 882 at 900, the Supreme Court stated its duty that: “In assessing the balance of probabilities, all the evidence be it that of the plaintiff or the defendant must be considered and the party in whose favour the balance tilts is the person whose case is the more probable of the rival version and is deserving of favourable verdict.” The main and fundamental matter before me accordingly raises the fundamental question of whether on all the evidence the plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated to the Court that the land in dispute, i.e. the plots numbered 8A and 8B, Block A, Sector 2, Wenchi were properly granted to him by the Wenchi Traditional Council in conjunction with the then Wenchi District Assembly. In the alternative, the Court must also decide whether or not on all the evidence the defendants have sufficiently demonstrated to the Court that the land in dispute is the property of the 1st defendant school. The first issue to consider is the allegation of fraud levelled against the plaintiff by the defendants. This allegation of fraud relates to 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th issues the Court set 6 out to determine. I would therefore deal with them together as the answer to one automatically determines the answer to the others. The defendants have sought to deny the Wenchi Traditional Council’s grant of two plots of land numbered 8A and 8B to the plaintiff and to attribute same to the fraudulent dealings between the plaintiff and one Emmanuel Oppong as recently as the year 2000 to alter the site plan of plot number 8 Block 'A' Sector 2 Wenchi, to include plot numbers 8A and 8B Block 'A' Sector 2, Wenchi. The law is that fraud vitiates everything and, if proved, could impeach a judgement of a Court of competent jurisdiction. In some cases, the Courts have held that due to the nature of fraud it must be specifically pleaded and particulars must be provided in order not to take the other side by surprise. The above position is in tandem with Order 11 rule 12 of the C.I. 47 which requires that a person pleading fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence must specifically plead and provide particulars of same. See: In re Agyekum (decd); Agyekum and Others v. Tackie and Brown (substituted by) Adjindah & Others [2005-2006] SCGLR 851. See also: Amuzu v. Oklikah [1998-99] SCGLR 141, 143 in holding 2 of the headnote. The defendants thus particularised their allegations of fraud against the plaintiff in the following terms: “a. There is no plot No. 8A 8B Block 'A' Sector 2, Wenchi. But Plaintiff is having documents to that effect; b. The Plaintiff has colluded with one Emmanuel Oppong as recent as 2000 to alter the site plan of plot No. 8 Block 'A' Sector 2 Wenchi, to read plot No. 8A 8B Block 'A' Sector 2, Wenchi.” 7 Forgery is a crime by virtue of the section 158 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The section provides that: “A person who, with intent to deceive any other person, forges any judicial or official document, commits a second degree felony.” Thus, to prove forgery against the plaintiff, it was incumbent on the defendants to adduce evidence of the making or the alteration of their land documents to include plot numbers 8A and 8B Block 'A' Sector 2, Wenchi, with the intent to pass as an endorsement by the Wenchi Traditional Council or the Municipal Town and Country Planning Office of the Wenchi Municipal Assembly that those plots do indeed exist. By rule of practice and evidence, the standard of proof of fraud even in civil suits is a proof beyond reasonable doubt. Section 13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) provides that: (1) In a civil or criminal action, the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This rule in section 13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 emphasises that where in a civil case crime is pleaded or alleged, the standard of proof changes from the civil one of the balance of probabilities to the criminal one of proof beyond reasonable doubt. At the trial, The defendants’ first witness tendered a site plan from the Municipal Town and Country Planning Office of the Wenchi Municipal Assembly, dated 14th January, 2009 ostensibly to prove that as at 2009 there were no plots numbered 8A and 8B in existence and therefore the Plaintiff’s site plan which was drawn in the year 2000 and which features plots numbered 8A and 8B is fake or fraudulent. Learned counsel for the defendants also tried, in his final address to this Court, to lead evidence to show discrepancies in the evidence proffered by the plaintiff to support 8 the defendants’ allegation of fraud. For example, counsel points to the fact that whilst the plaintiff claims that the land in dispute was granted to him by the Wenchi Traditional Council, acting by the late Omanhene Ampem Osagyefo Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo VI in conjunction with the then Wenchi District Assembly, as far back as the year 2003, the letter from the files of the Wenchi Traditional Council, confirming that plots number 8A and 8B Sector 2, Wenchi, are owned by the plaintiff (Exhibit C), was signed by the late Nana Krabiri Kwakwraka Yentutu in the year 2013. Learned counsel for the defendants also drew the Court’s attention to the fact that the plaintiff’s application for the plots in dispute from the Wenchi Traditional Council was dated 10th April, 2003, yet his site plan for the same plots was dated 4th June, 2000, thus suggesting that the plaintiff prepared his own site plan three years before he applied for the said plots of land. Whilst these alleged discrepancies pointed out by the defendants and their counsel makes for a compelling argument against the plaintiff’s claim, it is also manifestly clear that each of them could easily be explained away. For instance, even though the contents of plaintiff’s site plan (Exhibit B) as regards the land in dispute (plots 8A and 8B) are not supported by the 1st defendant’s more recent site plan (Exhibit 3), it still cannot be said to be a forgery as it was approved by the Wenchi Traditional Council and endorsed by the then President of the Traditional Council, Omanhene Ampem Osagyefo Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo VI. Exhibit “C” also appears to have been prepared in 2013 by the Wenchi Traditional Council ostensibly to confirm that a valid grant of the said plots of land had been made to the plaintiff in the year 2000 by the then President of the Wenchi Traditional Council, Ampem Osagyefo Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo VI. Indeed, the plaintiff’s Exhibit “C” rather speaks counter to the defendants’ claim that the plaintiff had forged his land documents to include plot numbers 8A and 8B Block 'A' Sector 2, Wenchi, with 9 the intent to pass as an endorsement by the Wenchi Traditional Council that those plots did indeed exist. Exhibit “C”, which is a letter dated 11th February, 2013, from the Wenchi Traditional Council to the Methodist Bishop of the Calvary Methodist Church, states as follows: “CONFIRMATION OF OWNERSHIP OF BUILDING PLOTS NUMBERED 8A AND 8B SECTOR 2 WENCHI KWAME OPOKU This is to officially confirm that the building plots numbered Plots No. 8A and 8B Wenchi Sector 2 were customarily and legally acquired in 2000. The Traditional Council is very much aware of the acquisition of the plots identified here in this document and confirm that the documents on the plot were customarily and legally endorsed by the President of Wenchi Traditional Council Ampem Osagefo Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo VI. The Council is therefore ready to testify in support of the claim of ownership of the plots by Kwame Opoku when the need arise.” The letter Exhibit “C”, in both its heading and its content, is clear confirmation from the Wenchi Traditional Council that the Council had allocated plots 8A and 8B, which had obviously been carved out the from the eastern part of plot 8 Block 'A' Sector 2, Wenchi, to the plaintiff in the year 2000. It was neither a lease document nor did it portend to be so. Thus, it would not be reasonable under the circumstances to expect the Exhibit “C” to have been prepared at the time of the grant of the land to the plaintiff or to have been authored or signed by the same chief who granted the land to the plaintiff in the year 2003, unless he was still alive then. Then again, a critical examination of defendant’s own site plan (Exhibit 3) shows that plot number 8 is not the only plot in the area with a twin plot A or B. Thus, it is not a strange occurrence to have a plot numbered 8A or 8B as the defendants want this 10 Court to believe. What appears to be the case here is that, over time, certain other plots of land appear to have been split into additional plots and re-labelled just as was done in the case of the plots numbered 8A and 8B Block 'A' Sector 2, Wenchi. Thus, on the whole, the defendants have failed to prove the specific acts of fraud alleged against the plaintiff to the standard required by law. None of the ingredients of forgery was proved in the instant case. The defendants did not go beyond repeating the allegations of fraud against the plaintiff. They merely made allusions to the possibility of forgery but failed on the face of the plaintiff’s deed to prove the forgery or how the alleged forgery was done. I find nothing on the record on the basis of which forgery can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff, and I would therefore dismiss this allegation of fraud. The issue of “whether or not the plots in dispute were customarily granted to the plaintiff by the Wenchi Traditional Council in the year 2000” ties in with the issue of “whether or not the customary grant made to the plaintiff earlier on was regularized and approved by the Traditional Council in conjunction with the then Wenchi District Assembly” as they both deal with the question of the plaintiff’s root of title, i.e. whether or not the plaintiff procured the land in dispute from the Wenchi Traditional Council which he claims to be his root of title. I will therefore deal with both issues together. On these two issues regarding his root of title, the plaintiff, per his pleadings and evidence in court, claims that the 1st defendant school’s bungalows and the immediate surrounding lands (including the land in dispute) belonged to the government but the Government subsequently relinquished the vacant portions of land to the Wenchi Traditional Council which demarcated same into building plots and allocated same to prospective developers including himself. The plaintiff tendered a site plan (Exhibit “B”) to prove that plots number 8A and 8B, Block A, Sector 2, Wenchi, had been 11 formally granted to him by the Wenchi Traditional Council as far back as the year 2000. The plaintiff also subpoenaed one Nana Tabiri Adinkra Kosopre III, who was the Acting President of the Wenchi Traditional Council, to confirm that the said plots had indeed been granted to the plaintiff by the Wenchi Traditional Council. He tendered a letter (Exhibit “C”), which he claimed was from the files of the Wenchi Traditional Council, confirming that plots number 8A and 8B Sector 2, Wenchi are owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in proving his claim of having purchased the two plots of land numbered 8A and 8B, from the Wenchi Traditional Council, on the preponderance of the probabilities, satisfactorily demonstrated in what manner particular that he came to be in possession of or acquired the said plots. The plaintiffs’ attorney and his witness (PW1) were able to describe the exact sequence of events leading to his acquisition of the documents on the land. The witness (PW1) confirmed by a letter from the Wenchi Traditional Council (Exhibit “C”) that the said plots had indeed been granted to the plaintiff by the Wenchi Traditional Council. Even more important is the fact that both PW1 and the author of Exhibit “C”, who confirmed the sale of the said plots of land to the plaintiff by the Wenchi Traditional Council, had been Acting Presidents of the Wenchi Traditional Council. Thus, in essence, the plaintiff’s assertion that the two plots of land numbered 8A and 8B were granted to him by the Wenchi Traditional Council in the year 2000 has, on the balance of probabilities, been duly established. The defendants on their part, per their pleadings and evidence before Court, have denied the grant of the land in dispute to the plaintiff by the Wenchi Traditional Council. It is their case that the plots numbered 8A and 8B form part of the 1st defendant school’s land, which is plot number 8, and that the plaintiff’s land documents were fraudulently altered to include plot numbers 8A and 8B Block 'A' 12 Sector 2, Wenchi, with the intent to pass as an endorsement by the Wenchi Traditional Council or the Municipal Town and Country Planning Office of the Wenchi Municipal Assembly that those plots do indeed exist. Learned counsel for the defendants also urges on the Court that, in any case, the land had been in the effective occupation and possession of the 1st defendant school for over fifty years before the adverse claim of the plaintiff commenced, thus implying that the plaintiff’s action is caught by the statute of limitation. In their attempt to establish that the land in dispute belongs the 1st defendant school and same was granted to it by the Government in 1965, the defendants relied on the evidence of two witnesses. The first witness (DW1) was the Assistant Headmaster in charge of Administration of the 1st defendant school. His evidence was to the effect that the school had been granted plot number 8 Block 'A' Sector 2, Wenchi, comprising the two bungalows and the land surrounding them as far back as the 1960s. It is the case of the defendants that the land in dispute belongs to the school because it is part of the plot 8 on which the two staff bungalows allocated to the school are situate, and it had been used by the school staff residents of the two bungalows for their backyard gardening since the 1960s. Unfortunately, however, the defendants failed to lead any evidence in proof of their claim that the dispute over the land had been resolved in their favour by both the Regional Coordinating Council in Sunyani and the Wenchi Municipal Town and Country Planning Office. From the site plan of the 1st defendant, it is manifestly clear that the 1st defendant school’s plot 8, granted to it by the State in the 1960s, includes the two staff bungalows and the land in dispute and extends all the way to the road to the east of the property. The Plaintiff’s site plan also clearly shows that the two plots 8A and 8B, granted to him by the Traditional Council in the year 2000, were carved out of the 1st defendant’s 13 land. Thus there are two conflicting grants of the same land to two different persons by two different authorities – the State represented by the Wenchi Municipal Assembly, on the one hand, and the Wenchi Traditional Council on the other. The situation here appears to be that, over time, certain plots of land in the area were split up into additional plots and re-demarcated by the Municipal Town and Country Planning Office of the Wenchi Municipal Assembly. In the year 2000, when the plaintiff’s site plan was prepared, these divisions and re-demarcations as regards plots 42, 43 and 44 were clearly not evident on the plan. However, by the year 2009 when the defendant’s site plan was prepared, plot numbers 42, 43, 44 and 45 had clearly been split up into additional plots 42A, 43A, 44A and 45A. This appears to be the same means by which the plot number 8A and B were carved out of the existing plot number 8 and allocated to the plaintiff by the Wenchi Traditional Council. It is thus from these two compelling sets of conflicting evidence that the Court must determine who owns the land in dispute. From the pleadings of both parties and the evidence adduced in court, it is evident that the plot 8 on which the 1st defendant school’s staff bungalows are situate as well as the portion of land in dispute are all Government lands that were under the control of the Wenchi District Assembly which is now a Municipal Assembly. Indeed the plaintiff, in his pleadings, categorically confirmed that the land in dispute is Government land under the control of the Wenchi Municipal Assembly. In paragraphs 10 to 14 of his amended statement of claim, he stated thus: 10. The plaintiff admits paragraph 16 of the amended statement of defence to the extent that the said gentlemen lived in some of the bungalows near the disputed plots of land during their tenure as Headmasters of the 1st defendant school but states that these were Government bungalows that were administered 14 by the PWS and were allocated to the 1st defendant school for the occupation of their personnel by the then Wenchi District Council, now Wenchi Municipal Assembly on the application of the 1st defendant school. 11. The plaintiff states further that the said Headmasters and for that matter the 1st defendant school, occupied the bungalows and the immediate surrounding lands as licencees of the Wenchi District Council and not as owners thereof. 12. Save as admitting that successive headmasters, assistant headmasters, etc. lived in the bungalows under the same circumstances as stated in paragraphs 10 and 11 supra the plaintiff denies the rest of the averments in paragraph 17 of the statement of defence. 13. The plaintiff admits paragraph 18 of the amended statement of defence but says that the other staff of the school were left behind because the school had no new bungalows for them also. But it has to be emphasized that at all times the said staff of the 1st defendant school lived in the bungalows as licencees of the Wenchi District Council, now Wenchi Municipal Assembly. [Emphasis mine] Thus, quite clearly, from his own pleadings, the plaintiff himself acknowledges the fact that the land in dispute is Government or State land which is controlled by the Municipal Town and Country Planning Office of the Wenchi Municipal Assembly. I therefore find it strange that the plaintiff, in full knowledge of this fact, rather went to the Wenchi Traditional Council to carve out and re-demarcate portions of Government land under the Municipal Assembly’s control for him. 15 Then again, it makes for good reasoning that, when there are two conflicting documents on the land in dispute with each ascribing ownership of the land to a different party, the question as to who owns the land in dispute must be determined with recourse to the most current plans of the land in dispute from the proper repository of land use in the area. This is also because in legal proceedings official documents such as documents prepared by the Municipal Town and Country Planning Offices are considered reliable and given weight in determining the outcome of the case. From the record, the 1st defendant’s site plan (Exhibit 3) was prepared by the Municipal Town and Country Planning Office of the Wenchi Municipal Assembly for the purpose of providing information on the school’s infrastructure and assets (see Exhibit 1), whilst the plaintiff’s site plan (Exhibit B) was prepared by a private surveyor. Again, the 1st defendant’s site plan was prepared in the year 2009, i.e. later in time than the plaintiff’s site plan which was prepared in the year 2000. Given that the 1st defendant’s site plan was prepared by the Municipal Town and Country Planning Office of the Wenchi Municipal Assembly, which is the proper authority for determining the spatial layout of land use and which is the repository of the land ownership records in the municipality, and given that the 1st defendant’s site plan is the most current or recent plan of the land in dispute, it stands to reason that the description in the plan (Exhibit 3) that the land in dispute is part of plot 8 and that there are no plots 8A and 8B in the plan represents the actual status of the land in dispute. If the Municipal Town and Country Planning Office of the Wenchi Municipal Assembly, declares on Exhibit 3, nine whole years after the Traditional Council purportedly granted the land in dispute to the plaintiff, that the land in dispute belongs to the 1st defendant school, then it simply means that they do not recognise or 16 agree to the grant of that parcel of land to the plaintiff. This was obviously the reason why the defendant’s site plan which was prepared in the year 2000, about nine years after the Wenchi Traditional Council purportedly allocated plots 8A and 8B to the plaintiff, does not reflect the re-demarcation of plot 8 by the Traditional Council into additional plots 8A and 8B. On the basis of the plaintiff’s own admissions in his pleadings and my finding that the land in dispute belonged to the Wenchi Municipal Assembly who allocated same to the 1st defendant school as far back as the 1960s, the question is whether the Wenchi Traditional Council had any title or interest in that land to convey or transfer same to the plaintiff in the year 2000? The answer is clearly in the negative. Even if the Traditional Council were the allodial owners of the land, having long relinquished their title or interest in the land to the Government, the principle of nemo dat quod non habet applied to render null and void any further dealing with the land by the Traditional Council. On the operation of the principle of nemo dat quod non habet, see the cases of: 1. Bruce v. Quaynor and Others (1959) GLR 292 at 294; 2. Mrs. Christiana Edith Agyakwa Aboa and Others v. Major Keelson (Rtd.) (2011) JELR 68105 (SC); 3. Sasu v. Amua Sakyi (1987-88) 2 GLR 221 holden 7 at pages 241 per Wuaku J.A. as he then was. In effect, the truth of the matter is that the plaintiff got nothing from the Traditional Council in the year 2000 in respect of the land in dispute and consequently has no title or interest in that land. 17 After patiently scrutinizing the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the defendants’ case has greater probative value than that offered by the plaintiff not only for the very clear reasons provided in the judgment above but also for reasons such as the lack of title in the plaintiff’s grantor (the Wenchi Traditional Council) to grant the portion of land in dispute to the plaintiff. I am fully convinced on the preponderance of probabilities that the land in question had been in the 1st defendant’s effective occupation, control and ownership since the 1960s. On the totality of the evidence before me, I find on the balance of probabilities that the land in dispute has over time been in the 1st defendant’s possession as beneficial owner. The plaintiff consequently fails on all his reliefs claimed. The defendants, on the other hand, succeed on their counterclaim. In consequence of my findings thereof: 1. The 1st defendant is hereby adjudged owner of plot No. 8 Block A Sector 2, Wenchi, including the portion of land in dispute, i.e. the so-called plots numbers 8A and 8B Block A Sector 2, Wenchi. The 1st defendant is thus entitled to recovery of possession of the so-called plots numbers 8A and 8B Block A Sector 2, Wenchi, that have been encroached upon by the plaintiff. 2. All documents bearing plot numbers 8A and 8B Block 'A' Sector 2, Wenchi are hereby declared null and void, and the Municipal Town and Country Planning Office of the Wenchi Municipal Assembly is hereby ordered to cancel and expunge them from their records. 3. General damages of ten thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵10,000.00) is awarded to the 1st defendant against the plaintiff for trespass. 18 4. An order of perpetual injunction is hereby issued restraining the plaintiff his, agents, assigns workmen etc. from interfering in any way with the plot No. 8 Block 'A' Sector 2, Wenchi, including the portion of land in dispute. I award cost of ten thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵10,000.00) to the defendants against the plaintiff. (SGD.) H/L JUSTICE FREDERICK A.W.K. NAWURAH. (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) Counsel – ▪ Nyamekye Samuel Vasco Esq. for the plaintiff; ▪ William Orleans Oduro Esq. for the defendants. 19