DARKWA VRS ZONDA TECH GHANA LIMITED & 3 OTHERS [2024] GHAHC 84 (15 May 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HELD AT CAPE COAST IN THE CENTRAL REGION ON WEDNESDAY THE 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2024 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE BERNARD BENTIL - HIGH COURT JUDGE. SUIT NO.: E1/12/2022 ISAAC DUNWELL DARKWA - PLAINTIFF VRS 1. ZONDA TECH GHANA LIMITED - DEFENDANTS 2. LANDS COMMISSION 3. YANG YANG 4. GUO ANJIE JUDGMENT The original Writ of Summons commencing this action was issued by the Plaintiff on 12th November, 2021 against the 1st and 2nd Defendants only for the reliefs indorsed thereon. Subsequent to an application for joinder by the 3rd and 4th Defendant, an order dated 30th November, 2021 was made by the Court (differently constituted) which joined the 3rd and 4th Defendants as Parties to this suit. The Plaintiff case is that pursuant to a Lease dated 4th March, 2004, the Gomoa Fetteh Stool, acting through Ebusuapanyin John Kojo Amokwandor granted a parcel of land containing an approximate area of 1.1 acres to the Plaintiff for a term of ninety-nine (99) years with the option of renewal for a further term of forty-five (45) years. After the acquisition of this land (which the subject matter of this suit), the Plaintiff proceeded to pay the ground rent and he continues to pay ground rent consistent with his right in the property. He subsequently registered his interest in the land in dispute as No. 564/2005. 1 The Plaintiff says that he acquired the said parcel of land purposely for the development of estate properties along the Accra-Winneba Road. Further to this, he commenced the necessary processes to obtain the requisite permits and resources for the intended purpose. The Plaintiff has been in possession and has enjoyed quiet possession of the said land until his attention was drawn to the fact that the whole of the said land had been encroached upon by the 1st Defendant who was undertaking some construction works on the disputed land. The Plaintiff states that sometime in 2017, he had cause to believe that there had been some suspicious transactions in respect of the disputed land. Consequently, he caused an official search to be conducted on his land at the Lands Commission, Cape Coast and the search revealed certain land transactions that had been carried out in his name in respect of the said parcel of land between 2013 and 2015. The said transactions purports to convey the Plaintiff’s interest in the land in dispute by way of assignment to one Joseph Kodjo Nyamekye and subsequently to Kwame Osei Obeng. The Plaintiff says that he had no knowledge of the said transaction and he has never instructed the land in dispute be made the subject matter of the said suspicious transactions. The Plaintiff avers that when he became aware of these fraudulent land transactions in respect of the land in dispute, he instructed his lawyers to write to the 2nd Defendant in October 2017 for the said suspicious land transactions to be revered. The 2nd Defendant, however, did not revert. Again, in October 2020 the Plaintiff caused his lawyers to write to the 2nd Defendant demanding the said fraudulent transactions to be reversed. The 2nd Defendant reverted saying that it can only reverse the said fraudulent land transactions on the orders of a court of competent jurisdiction. The Plaintiff avers that during the period he was making frantic efforts to rectify the said fraudulent transactions, the land was purportedly leased to the 1st Defendant who has started developing same. The Plaintiff alleges that the 1st Defendant is not a prudent purchaser. He states that a search at the Registry of the 2nd Defendant would have revealed that he has a registered interest in the land in dispute and that the 2 Plaintiff has been challenging the two (2) preceding transactions in respect of the land in dispute. The Plaintiff further alleges fraud in respect of the successive transactions after his acquisition of the said parcel of land. The Plaintiff maintains that the conduct of the 2nd Defendant in registering the purported suspicious land transactions between 2013 and 2015 and the subsequent lease of the said land to the 1st Defendant was fraudulent. The particulars of fraud are as set out in paragraph 18 of the Statement of Claim. The Plaintiff further maintains that the 2nd Defendant was negligent in its duty towards the Plaintiff since the Plaintiff had no notice whatsoever form the creation of an interest by way of Deed(s) of assignments in the said parcel of land and the subsequent registration of same. The particulars of negligence are clearly set out in paragraph 21 of the Statement of Claim. On the basis of the foregoing, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants the following reliefs: a. A declaration of title to all that parcel of land containing an approximate area of 1.01 acres situated at Gomoa Buduburam in the Gomoa East District in the Central Region of the Republic of Ghana bounded on the North-East by proposed 20 feet lane measuring 148.72 feet more or less, on the South-East by proposed 20 feet lane measuring 295.88 feet more or less, on the South-West by Accra-Winneba Road measuring 150.15 feet more or less and on the North-West by Vendor’s land measuring 295.21 feet more or less and more particularly delineated on plan attached to the Lease. b. A declaration that the Plaintiff has a valid and registered subsisting leasehold interest in the said parcel of land by virtue of the Lease dated on or about 4th March, 2004 between the Gomoa Fetteh Stool represented by Ebusuapanyin John Kojo Amokwandor and Plaintiff. c. An order directed at the 2nd Defendant to cancel and expunge from its records all transactions involving the Plaintiff and Joseph Kodjo Nyamekye as well as any subsequent transactions that followed same. 3 d. Recovery of vacant possession of the said parcel of land from the 1st Defendant and/or any person(s) claiming through the 1st Defendant. e. An order of perpetual injunction against the 1st and 2nd Defendants, its privies, servants or assigns from entering, transferring, registering an interest, further developing and/or carrying out any activity on the Plaintiff’s land. f. An order of mandatory injunction directed at the 1st Defendant to demolish all structures on the Plaintiff’s land and to bring same to the state it was before the encroachment. g. A declaration that the conduct of the 1st Defendant in acquiring the said parcel of land was fraudulent. h. A declaration that the conduct of the 2nd Defendant in registering the suspicious transactions relating to the Plaintiff’s land without recourse to the Plaintiff when it was obvious that the Deed(s) of Assignments were forged was fraudulent. i. Damages against the 1st Defendant for trespass. j. Damages against the 2nd Defendant for negligence k. Costs including legal fees. l. Any other relief(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit. On the other hand, the Defendants refute the claims or assertions of the Plaintiff set out above. The case of the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants, as gleaned from their Statement of Defence filed on 10th January, 2022 is that, the 1st Defendant has never acquired any interest in any land nor been in possession of any land within the geographical area described in paragraph 5 of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim. According to the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendant, being desirous of purchasing land within the Gomoa District, they were introduced to their grantor, one Kwame Osei Obeng, who showed them the parcel of land and additionally gave them the documents to the land. The land, comprising of “Plot A” and “Plot B” and adjoining each other, is situate at the Fetteh Kakraba in the Gomoa East District in the Central Region of the Republic 4 of Ghana and contains an approximate area of 0.92 acres or 0.37 hectares and particularly described in the schedule contained in the Statement of Defence. The 3rd and 4th Defendant then engaged the services of a surveyor to confirm the land by preparing a new site plan and comparing same with the site plan of their grantor. The surveyor confirmed that the land showed to the Defendants was the same as that which was indicated on the site plan. They further proceeded to the Lands Commission, Cape Coast, to conduct a search for the purpose of verifying ownership to the land. The search result indicated that as at 5th October, 2015 and 16th October, 2015, a deed of assignment had been duly registered in the name of their grantor – Kwame Osei Obeng for both Plot A and Plot B respectively. The 3rd and 4th Defendants state that, prior to the purchase of the land in dispute, their grantor was in possession of the land having permitted some traders to ply their trade in front of the land in kiosks and containers. Also, prior to making final payment for the land and to assure the 3rd and 4th Defendants that their grantor was in undisturbed possession of the said land, their grantor caused all persons trading in front of the land to relocate their shops in order to give the 3rd and 4th Defendants vacant possession of the land. Having taken peaceful possession of the land and with the intention to commence construction, they applied for and obtained all statutory permits from the Assembly and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to the commencement of construction. It is the case of the 3rd and 4th Defendants that at all material times they have acted reasonably and diligently prior to and during the purchasers of the land. All enquiries they conducted, both formal and informal, including but not limited to the formal search at the Lands Commission, Cape Coast clearly revealed their grantor as the registered owner of the land in dispute. The search never revealed any adverse interest of the Plaintiff in the said land and thus acted in good faith. 5 The 3rd and 4th Defendants contend that the Plaintiff ought to have made the said Mr. Joseph Kodjo Nyamekye (who purports to be the beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent Deed of Assignment) a Party to enable him to be heard in this matter. It is the case of the 3rd and 4th Defendant that they never met nor dealt with the said Mr. Joseph Kodjo Nyamekye as far as the purchase and registration of the land is concerned. Additionally, the 3rd and 4th Defendants state that, assuming without admitting the truth of the allegations of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff failed to act timeously and went to sleep on his right, if any, as he failed to seek redress from a court of competent jurisdiction as advised by the 2nd Defendant in a letter dated 5th November, 2020. The 3rd and 4th Defendants state that all transactions since 2004 have been duly registered by the appropriate government institution, the 2nd Defendant herein. Therefore, having conducted several searches from the Registry of the 2nd Defendant, the 3rd and 4th Defendants are well within their rights to presume that the official report from the 2nd Defendant is correct and reliable unless a contrary is proved timeously. The 2nd Defendant, in its Statement of Defence, also expressed its dissent to the facts contained in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim. The case of the 2nd Defendant is that the land in dispute is not a public land thus, grants, allocation, preparation of site plans and conveyance are not under its purview, management and administration. The 2nd Defendant duly processes and registers various interests in family and stool lands as presented to its office and it plays no role in the grants, preparation and execution of such land transactions. According to the 2nd Defendant, it is repugnant to good conscience and equity and also obnoxious to state that the 2nd Defendant had been negligent and/or fraudulent in processing the assignments emanating between the Plaintiff and one Joseph Kodjo Nyamekye. The land being a family land and the said recorded assignments being private transactions, the 2nd Defendant had no hand in the grants, preparation and execution of those deeds. 6 The 2nd Defendant states that, the assignments dated 15th July, 2013 and 25th December 2013 were only presented to the office of the 2nd Defendant for registration and was found to have been made between the Plaintiff herein and Joseph Kodjo Nyamekye and they are private land transactions. The 2nd Defendant contends that in the cause of registering the said assignments, the 2nd Defendant has not breached any right of the Plaintiff to vindicate any accrued cause of action in the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant. It is worth mentioning that the Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence of the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants wherein he, inter alia, joined issues with them on their Statement of Defence. Directions were taken on 3rd March, 2022. It is clear from the Court Notes for this day that the following issues were set down as issues for trial: a. Whether or not the Plaintiff has title to the land in dispute. b. Whether or not transactions subsequent to the Plaintiff’s land registration was done with the knowledge and consent of the Plaintiff. c. Whether or not title registrations subsequent to the Plaintiff’s title registration at the Lands Commission were done fraudulently. d. Whether or not the 2nd Defendant was negligent in registering the purported title of the 3rd and 4th Defendants. e. Whether or not the 3rd and 4th Defendants had any prior knowledge of a fraudulent transaction regarding the deeds of transfer prior to or during the registration of their interest in the disputed land. In addition to the above, it is clear to me that the issue of whether or not the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the interest of the Plaintiff also arise from the pleading and deserve this Court’s consideration. I shall first determine the issue (a) and then proceed to determine (b), (c) and (d) together. Finally, I shall conclude this judgment with a determination on issue (e) and whether 7 or not the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the interest of the Plaintiff. Having outlined the issues for determination it is necessary to briefly state the law on the burden of proof in civil cases. As a matter of principle, the burden of proof rests on he who asserts or alleges. The law requires the categorical establishment of a fact a Party alleges, most especially, when same has been denied by his opponent. See ZABRAMA V SEGBEDZI (1991) 2 GLR 221. Failing to adduce such evidence as to convince a reasonable mind, such as this Court, would be detrimental to the case of the person who alleges as he risks his case being dismissed. As a general rule, the standard of proof in civil cases in Ghana is proof by a preponderance of the probabilities. This has been defined by section 12(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (N.R.C.D. 323) to be the certainty of belief in the mind of the Court by which it is convinced that existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence. See ACKAH V PERGAH TRANSPORT LTD (2010) SCGLR 728. However, it is worthwhile to note that an exception to this rule lies where a Party alleges the commission of a crime against the other and same is directly in issue. In this case, the standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is adequately provided for in section 13(1) of the Evidence Act as follows: “In any 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.” Therefore, in cases where a Party alleges fraud in a civil suit (such as this instant case), he/she bears the onus to prove same beyond reasonable doubt. 8 See FENUKU V JOHN TEYE [2001-2002] SCGLR 985 and SASU BAMFO V SINTIM [2012] SCGLR 136; JANET TAGOE V ALFRED NII TETTEH [2016] 98 GMJ 125 at p.147-148, C.A. On account of the above, the Plaintiff herein clearly bears the onus to establish his assertions in order to convince this Court that what he asserts are more probable than that of his opponents. In relation to the allegation of fraud, the Plaintiff, if desirous of obtaining judgment in his favour, ought to adduce evidence to satisfy this court of the existence of fraud beyond reasonable doubt. This action, being one for a declaration of title, requires the Plaintiff to succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of his opponent’s case. It also settled law that a person seeking for a declaration of title to land or recovery of possession must prove his root of title, mode of acquisition and various acts of possession exercised over the land. See RUKAYATU USUMANU V ZONGO NAA KUN-GARI & 16 OTHERS (J4/23/2020) DATED 31ST MARCH 2021 (DELIVERED BY THE SUPREME COURT). It is only where the party has succeeded in establishing these facts on the balance of probabilities that the party would be entitled to the claim. This was emphasised by the Supreme Court in the case of MONDIAL VENEER (GH) LTD V AMUAH GYEBI XV [2011] 1 SCGLR 466 at 476. The law also requires such party to satisfactorily prove the identity of the land. See TACKIE V LAMPTEY [2001-2002] 2 GLR 186. A court cannot make orders for title or an injunction in respect of a land whose identity is uncertain or unknown. Any such orders made is made in vain and same cannot operate as res judicata to prevent the Parties from re-litigating the same issue in respect of the said laid. For this reason, a claim for declaration of title must always fail where the plaintiff fails to establish positively the identity of the land to which he claims title. 9 See the case of ANANE V DONKOR; KWARTENG V DONKOR (CONSOLIDATED) [1965] GLR 188. From the testimony of the Plaintiff, he traces his root of title to the Gomoa Fetteh Stool. The Plaintiff tendered in evidence a copy of a Lease executed in his favour as EXHIBIT J wherein he acquired a leasehold interest of ninety-nine (99) years with option to renew for a further term of forty-five (45) years. From the Witness Statement of the Plaintiff, the only acts of ownership he exercised over the land in dispute is putting a caretaker, one Samuel Badua alias Red, on the land to ward off potential trespassers. There is also sufficient evidence before this Court that the Plaintiff registered his interest in the land in dispute at the Registry of the 2nd Defendant. It is for this reason why a search at the Registry of the 2nd Defendant reveals, among others, that the land is a subject of Exhibit J dated 4th March, 2004. See EXHIBIT C annexed to the Plaintiff’s Witness Statement. Although the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants challenged the geographical location of the land in dispute and contend that the 1st Defendant has no connection whatsoever with the matter pending before this court, the Composite Plan filed on 21st October 2022 establishes otherwise. From the Composite Plan, the land in dispute is located at Buduburam in the Gomoa East District and not Fetteh Kakraba as alleged by the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants. The Composite Plan clearly establishes that the Parties are disputing over the same piece of land and the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants are very well connected to the subject matter of this suit. By virtue of the above, the Plaintiff has satisfied this Court of his title and interest in the land in dispute. The issue, therefore, is whether or not the Plaintiff has alienated his interest in the land in dispute as captured by Exhibit C which is a search report detailing various transactions affecting the land. This leads me to the determination of issues (b), (c) and (d) set out above. Whiles the Plaintiff maintains that these were done without his knowledge and consent thus fraudulent and void, the Defendants maintain otherwise. 10 On the face of Exhibit C, the portion marked ‘A’ falls on a Deed of Assignment dated 15th July, 2013 between Mr Isaac Donewell on the one part and Joseph Kodjo Nyameke on the other part. Exhibit C further revealed that the portion marked ‘A’ again falls on a Deed of Assignment dated 5th October, 2015 between Joseph Kodjo Nyameke on the one part and Kwame Osei Obeng on the other part. Further, the portion marked ‘B’ falls on a Deed of Assignment dated 25th December, 2013 between Mr Isaac Donewell Darquah on the one part and Mr. Joseph Kodjo Nyameke on the other part. The portion marked ‘B’ again falls on a Deed of Assignment dated 16th October, 2015 between Mr. Joseph Kodjo Nyameke on one part and Kwame Osei Obeng on the other part. In the Plaintiff’s bid of proving the fraudulent nature of the transactions, he tendered in evidence a copy of a Deed of Assignment dated 15th July, 2013 purportedly executed between himself and on Mr. Joseph Kodjo Nyameke as EXHIBIT D. I have perused the said indenture and I cannot help but notice the disparity in the name of the Plaintiff herein as appears on his Ghana Card (EXHIBIT E) and as seen on Exhibit D. The same is evident on the face of EXHIBIT LC3 being the second deed of assignment purportedly made by the Plaintiff. The assignor in these Deeds of Assignment is one Mr. Isaac Donewell Darquah and the Plaintiff’s name is clearly Isaac Dunwell Darkwa. A reasonable mind presented with these indentures would arrive at the obvious conclusion that Mr. Isaac Donewell Darquah is not the Plaintiff herein by reason of the difference in the names. A further observation made in the evaluation of these indentures also revealed the difference in the signature of the assignor in the indentures and the Plaintiff herein. It is settled that where an issue arises as to the authenticity or genuineness of a signature in a document, the Court or any other witness (not necessary an expert) could compare signatures on other documents bearing the signature of the author of the document. This is amply supported by section 141 of the Evidence Act which enacts: 11 “Authentication or identification of a signature, handwriting, seal or finger impression may be by a comparison made by a witness or by the Court with a specimen which has been proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be genuine.” In this instant case, this Court has compared the signatures of the Plaintiff on his Witness Statement filed on 17th May, 2022, the Supplementary Witness Statement filed on 10th March, 2023, the signature of the Plaintiff appearing on the Exhibit J (the Plaintiff’s original Lease dated 4th March, 2004) attached to the Supplementary Witness Statement, the Ghana Card of the Plaintiff and the signatures appearing on Exhibits LC2 and LC3 (the purported Deeds of Assignment executed by the Plaintiff). I find consistency in the signature of the Plaintiff as appearing on the Plaintiff’s Witness Statement filed on 17th May, 2022, the Supplementary Witness Statement filed on 10th March, 2023, the signature of the Plaintiff appearing on the Exhibit J and his Ghana Card thus accept same to be the genuine signature of the Plaintiff as opposed to the purported signature of the Plaintiff on Exhibits LC2 and LC3. On the strength of the above, I am satisfied that Exhibits LC2 and LC3 were not sanctioned by the Plaintiff. Obviously, these transactions (that is, Exhibits LC2 and LC3) reek of fraud and were calculated to represent or portray an assignment of the Plaintiff’s interest in the land in dispute. The 2nd Defendant, in light of the glaring evidence of fraud, ought not to have registered these instruments and the mere fact of registration renders the matter res ipsa loquitur. The above identified inconsistencies would have been noticed by the 2nd Defendant had it been diligent in the performance of its statutory duties. It is no answer for the 2nd Defendant to say that these indentures were not prepared nor executed by the Lands Commission or that the land in question is not public land thus grants, allocation and conveyance are not under its purview, management or administration. This cannot constitute a bar or disable the 2nd Defendant from being vigilant and diligent in the registration of interests in family or stool lands. 12 The 2nd Defendant has been entrusted with the duty of registration of deeds and other instruments affecting land in areas outside compulsory title registration districts and also maintaining land registers that contain records of land and other interests in land under the Lands Commission Act, 2008 (Act 767). A provision to this effect has been made under section 21 of the Lands Commission Act. The ratio legis is, inter alia, for the safeguard of interests in lands of private individuals. Therefore, where there is glaring evidence of fraud, such as in this case, the 2nd Defendant owed a duty to the Plaintiff, in the circumstances, to seek the confirmation of the Plaintiff in respect of these indentures purporting to alienate his interest before proceeding to register same. A finding to the contrary would open the floodgates and create a conducive environment for brooding fraud. Any scoundrel could successfully sit in the comfort of his home, forge documents and get same registered at the Lands Commission to the detriment of hardworking members of the community. Further evidence of the negligence of the 2nd Defendant lies in the subsequent registration of the interest of the 1st Defendant in the land in dispute after the former’s attention had been drawn to the fraudulent deeds of assignment purportedly made by the Plaintiff in two letters dated 17th October, 2017 (EXHIBIT F) and 30th October, 2020 (EXHIBIT G). It is noteworthy that these letters were delivered to the 2nd Defendant before the registration carried out by the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants. The 2nd Defendant ought to have been circumspect in the circumstances and put the registration of the deed of assignment in favour of the 1st Defendant on hold until the issue concerning the suspicious transactions are dealt with by a Court of Competent jurisdiction as advised by the 2nd Defendant in its letter dated 5th November, 2020 (EXHIBIT H) in response to the Plaintiff’s letters. The 2nd Defendant, after receipt of Exhibits F and G, ought to have notified the Plaintiff of any attempted registrations as well as the 1st Defendant of the challenge made by the Plaintiff in respect to the transactions complained of. The 2nd Defendant is not automatically mandated to register any instrument that is presented to it for registration especially when its attention has been drawn to fraud. 13 In the light of the above, I am satisfied that Exhibits LC2 and LC3 were fraudulently procured and registered and same were done without the knowledge of the Plaintiff. However, the evidence does not establish that the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants were privy to the initial fraud perpetuated against the Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence connecting the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants to Exhibits LC2 and LC3. This being the case, the pertinent issue which rears its head for determination is whether or not the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of fraud. This determination is necessary because, although the plea of bona fide purchaser for value was not expressly mentioned in the Statement of Defence of the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants, the entirety of their defence rests on the plea. The onus therefore lies on the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants to adduce evidence in to convince this court that at all material times, it acted in good faith, honestly and reasonably as pleaded in paragraph 16 of the Statement of Defence. In the case of HYDRAFOAM ESTATES (GH) LTD V OWUSU [2013-14] 2 GLR 1117 the Supreme Court held as follows: “Where a party had put up the plea of bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any adverse title, the onus would squarely be on that party who had pleaded same. Since the plea was to be considered as an absolute, unqualified and unanswerable defence if upheld by a court of law, the law would require that evidence in support of the plea must satisfy the Court.” The courts have in myriad of cases advised purchasers of land to tread cautiously in purchasing land. In effect, intending purchasers are to be as shrewd as serpents lest being exploited. It is settled law that any person desirous of acquiring property must properly investigate the root of title of his vendor. See KUSI & KUSI V BONSU (2010) SCGLR 60; OSUMANU V OSUMANU & ANOTHER [1995-96] 1 GLR 672-689. In the case of the BOATENG V DWINFUOR [1979] GLR 360 the Court of Appeal held that: 14 “The general principle of equity is that a purchaser is deemed to have notice of all that a reasonably prudent purchaser would have discovered. Thus where the purchaser, like the plaintiff in this case, had actual notice that the property was in some way encumbered, she will be held to have constructive notice of all that she would have discovered if she had investigated the encumbrance.” The Supreme Court elucidated this principle even more clearly in the case of ANSAH & ANOTHER V JOE & ANOTHER [1961] GLR 395. The Supreme Court held that: A purchaser must look out for himself: caveat emptor. He must take precautions for his own protection – if he does not he “asks for it” and cannot complain if he “gets it”. In this instant case, Daniel Nseboah Amoah (the Attorney of the 3rd and 4th Defendants) stated in his Witness Statement that the 3rd and 4th Defendants before negotiating for the land and making payment for the land painstakingly conducted several searches to ascertain the true ownership of the land in dispute. Further, all enquiries conducted, both formal and informal, showed that their grantor had duly registered his interest with the 2nd Defendant. He tenders in evidence EXHIBITS 4, 5 and 6 as evidence of the search results obtained. The search reports revealed that the ownership of the land, as far as registration was concerned, has changed four (4) times spanning a period of seventeen (17) years before the 3rd and 4th Defendants acquired their interest in the land. Further, Daniel Nseboah Amoah stated that the 3rd and 4th Defendants took pain to attain and familiarise themselves with all the transactions affecting the land that have been registered by the 2nd Defendant since 2004. Therefore, they are well within their rights to presume that the official report from the appropriate government agency is correct and reliable unless the contrary is timeously proven. From the testimony above, it is clear that the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants are solely relying on EXHIBITS 4, 5 and 6 which are reports of searches conducted at the Lands Commission. The Exhibits confirm the contents of the Plaintiff’s Exhibit C. Indeed, per 15 these search reports, the ownership of the land, as far as registration was concerned, has changed four (4) times spanning a period of seventeen (17) years before the 3rd and 4th Defendants acquired their interest in the land. The reports also revealed the registered interest of the grantor of the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants, Kwame Osei Obeng, at the time of purchase. Therefore, according to Attorney of the 3rd and 4th Defendants, they registered their interest in the land without any notice of any encumbrance or adverse interest in the land. The law is settled that the mere fact of registration does not dispense with the equitable doctrine of fraud and notice. See AMUZU V OKLIKAH (1998-99) SCGLR 141; WESTERN HARDWOOD ENTERPRISE LTD & ANOTHER V WEST AFRICAN ENTERPRISES LTD (1998- 99) SCGLR 105. As stated above, a purchaser of land is put on notice to investigate the title of the land and ensure that the vendor is the rightful person to sell the land. The purchaser, in carrying out this due diligence, must reasonably make enquiries in respect of the land he seeks to acquire and this involves both official searches at the Lands Commission and physical inspection of the land to ensure it is free from any encumbrances. It is only upon a satisfactory investigation as to the title of the vendor that a buyer should proceed to conclude a contract for the sale of land. See MORGAN KWAME OPOKU V AKOSUA OSAA (CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/214/2018) DATED 21ST MARCH 2019 (DELIVERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL); ROSINA ARYEE V SHELL GHANA LTD & FRAGA OIL (CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/3/2015) DATED 22ND OCTOBER, 2015 (DELIVERED BY THE SUPREME COURT). In the unreported case of ROSINA ARYEE V SHELL GHANA LTD & FRAGA OIL (supra) the Supreme Court further held that notice does not mean only notice of registration of the title but also notice of possession by the first purchaser, grantee or lessee or their agent as the case may be. 16 From the evidence before this Court, notwithstanding the initial fraudulent deeds of assignments, that is Exhibits LC2 and LC3, it is clear that the Plaintiff was still in possession of the land in dispute. He had his caretaker live on the land in dispute. According to the testimony of Francis Eshun for the Plaintiff, the said caretaker, Samuel Badu, constructed a single room on the land in dispute where he stayed for more than fourteen (14) years. The presence of the Plaintiff’s caretaker should have put the 3rd and 4th Defendants on notice to make further enquiries as to the ownership of the land in order to conclusively confirm the title of their grantor. The evidence is also clear that the Plaintiff, acting through one James Ato Halm, petitioned the Property Fraud Unit of the Ghana Police Service on 20th November, 2020. Following the petition, some police officers accompanied James Ato Halm to the land in dispute that same day and discovered three Chinese nationals and some Ghanaians who are believed to be workers of the 1st Defendant. These persons were invited to the Police Headquarters for interrogation. From the testimony of James Ato Halm, on 21st November, 2020 they met at the Police Headquarters where he informed the Chinese nationals that the land in dispute had not been sold by the Plaintiff. He further cautioned them not to engage with anybody in respect of the land. This testimony was not controverted during cross-examination thus, I find same established. It is worth mentioning that what transpired at the Police Headquarters was prior to the execution of the deed of assignment in favour of the 3rd and 4th Defendants in June 2021 which is attached to the Witness Statement of Daniel Nseboah Amoah for the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants as EXHIBIT 3. This is hard evidence of notice of the interest of the Plaintiff prior to the execution of the Exhibit 3 and the registration thereof. It is clear that the 3rd and 4th Defendants deliberately failed to see the obvious and failed to take the necessary precautions to protect itself. Solely relying on the search reports from the Lands Commission and proceeding to purchase the land only on that basis in the light of the above evaluated evidence is not characteristic of a prudent purchaser. In the case of OLIVIA ANIM (SUING PER HER LAWFUL ATTORNEY DIANA MENSAH BONSU) V WILLIAM 17 DZANDZI (CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/10/2018) DATED 6TH JUNE 2019 the Supreme Court held that: “We do not believe that a search in the registry is the only due diligence to be carried out when one intends to buy a particular piece of land. Enquiries from the neighbors would go a long way to clear doubts and also to prove that due diligence was observed in investigating not only the root of title but also any interest in the land.” In this wise, I find that the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants acted recklessly in the acquisition of the land in dispute and thus, cannot be termed as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The conduct of the 2nd Defendant, upon a reflection on the entire case before this Court is quite frightening. One can only imagine the number of innocent citizens who have had to endure similar misfortune as a result of the actions of the 2nd Defendant – their lands being surreptitiously transferred to another person without their knowledge, in a fraudulent scheme in which their names and signatures covering their land documents lodged with the 2nd Defendant are forged and same exchanged in furtherance of this scheme with the active connivance of officers of the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant may seek comfort in the excuse, inter alia, that it was unable to detect whether indeed the person with title to the land was the one who instigated the change in the land documents. However, such a defence fails because the name of the original owner of the land, which is contained in the documents lodged with the 2nd Defendant is rendered differently in the document purporting to effect the transfer and change of ownership. A close examination of the signatures on both documents also discloses dissimilarity. How could this glaring deviation escape the attention of the schedule officer who should have been more diligent in interrogating the issue to unravel the source of the disjunction in order to satisfy himself that nothing dubious, fraudulent or criminal had been occasioned. While the advice to Plaintiff to take the issue up in court was not out of place, it did not preclude 2nd Defendant from initiating 18 its own independent investigations into the matter. They would have been fortified in this enterprise especially after their attention was drawn to the fact that the transfer they had effected which had occasioned a change in the ownership of the land bore different names and signatures to that of the original land title documents in their custody. This notwithstanding, their antennae was not sufficiently triggered as to suspect any wrong doing in the entire purported transaction. 2nd Defendant has acted negligently and recklessly in overseeing a process that has deprived a citizen with legitimate title to land, the economic use of same, these past three (3) years and more that the issue has been before this Court. Even the most malevolent being would not tolerate such an injustice. The conduct of both 3rd and 4th Defendants can also not escape censure. Having come to the knowledge that they had been mired in a fraudulent transaction to their own detriment, they sought solace under the cover of bona fide purchaser for value without notice although not explicitly mentioned. The position of the law is that no individual must benefit from a criminal enterprise, of which this transaction is, I daresay. While the matter before the Court is a civil one for which it is rendering its verdict today, the Court will be most pleased if the Lands Commission institutes an investigation into this matter to unearth any criminal syndicate operating within its establishment to deprive citizens with legitimate title, to particularly prime land, the enjoyment of same. The Plaintiff is perfectly within their rights to ask for the award of damages for the economic loss they have suffered during the period that they were deprived of the use of their land which had been fraudulently transferred to another individual. The Court will exercise its discretion, taking into consideration the prevailing economic and financial variables, to determine the appropriate compensation to Plaintiff. While the Court is not pre-empting any criminal prosecution, there can be no doubt that in the event of that happening, both 3rd and 4th Defendants would have had a case to answer for their role in this fraudulent enterprise. 19 It is the view of this Court that as this case unfolded and the nature of the transaction became manifest, both 3rd and 4th Defendant should have involved their grantor or joined them in the suit, at least to establish their innocence if that was the case, but alas they did not, the reasons for which are completely decipherable even to the untrained eye. In the true spirit of Ex turpi causa doctrine, 3rd and 4th Defendants cannot benefit from a criminal activity since they did not act in good faith after being notified that the land was fraudulently procured. If your grantor fraudulently procures a land and transfers it to you, you should not be covered by the law if your attention is brought to the fraud before you start developing the land. The principle of "once a fraud, always a fraud" applies. This means that a transaction tainted by fraud cannot be validated by subsequent events or actions. If you have knowledge of the fraud before developing the land, you may be considered complicit or an accessory to the fraud, and the law will not protect your interests. The evidence before this Court shows that Plaintiff did not grant the land in dispute to Joseph Kodjo Nyamekye and Kwame Osei for the latter to be able to grant same to the 3rd and 4th Defendants. The Plaintiff is entirely blameless in the fraudulent transaction and the circumstances that occasioned the loss of his land in the first place. Any suggestion to the contrary would be totally unfair. It cannot be that individuals with legitimate title to land, having obtained same from the Lands Commission, must then police that title by regular visitation to the Commission to ascertain whether that title has been vacated or indeed transferred to another person fraudulently without their knowledge. State institutions like the Lands Commission clothed with the authority to deliver on their mandate, must do their work without the prompting of citizens who have invested time and resources to procure their services. In the event that their own systems and structures fail because of the greed of some of their staff, innocent citizens must not be made to suffer the consequences of their evil actions. Not even the devil, who is known for doing wrong would allow the Plaintiff to lose his land in such a ridiculously unfair and outrageous manner. 20 In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s action therefore succeeds on the basis of the foregoing. The Plaintiff has satisfied this Court of its interest in the land in dispute on the preponderance of the probabilities. The evidence further establishes that the subsequent transactions affecting the Plaintiff’s land were fraudulently procured and registered and same were done without the knowledge of the Plaintiff. Further, I find the conduct of the 2nd Defendant in registering the interest of the 3rd and 4th Defendants very negligent especially when their attention had been drawn to fraud perpetuated on the Plaintiff. The 3rd and 4th Defendants have also failed to adduce evidence to satisfy this Court that at all material times, they acted diligently and reasonably as prudent purchasers of land. Judgment is according entered in favour of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, I make the following final orders: 1. The Plaintiff is declared the owner of all that piece of land described in relief (a) indorsed on the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. 2. The 2nd Defendant is hereby ordered to expunge from its records, the names of the 3rd and 4th Defendants as well as the names of Joseph Kodjo Nyamekye and Kwame Osei. 3. The Plaintiff is to recover possession of the land in dispute. 4. An order for the demolishing of all structures on the land in dispute at the cost of the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants or to reimburse the Plaintiff for the cost of the demolition. 5. Damages of GH₵400,000.00 is awarded against the 2nd Defendant for negligence. 6. Costs of GH₵50,000.00 is awarded in favour of the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant. 7. Costs of GH₵30,000.00 is awarded in favour of the Plaintiff against the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants. 21 (SGD) BERNARD BENTIL J. [HIGH COURT JUDGE] COUNSEL: PAMELA AVORH-MENSAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF. SIDEY ANTONIO ESQ. FOR ENOCH DOGBE ESQ. FOR THE 1ST, 3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANTS. CLEMENT ABOAGYE LARBI ESQ. FOR JOHN DZIDA ESQ. FOR 2ND DEFENDANT. 22