MOGTAR VRS SULEMANA & ANOTHER (UW/WA/CT/A1/07/2022) [2024] GHACC 267 (28 June 2024)

IN THE UPPER WEST CIRCUIT HELD AT WA ON FRIDAY THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 BEFORE HIS HONOUR JONATHAN AVOGO ESQ. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUIT NO. UW/WA/CT/A1/07/2022 MUSEIBU MOGTARI …………………………. PLAINTIFF VRS 1. OSMAN SULEMANA …………………………DEFENDANT 2. ADAMU S. MASHOOD JUDGMENT Introduction This is a dispute over a piece of land situate and lying close to the frontage of the Wa Naa palace in Wa. Whereas the Plaintiff claims the land was granted to his late father by the reigning Wa Naa at the time, Wa Naa Seidu Kofi, the Defendants deny that claim and presses that the land is the family property of the Pelpuo’s, one of the gates that can ascend to the paramountcy of the walaas. By coincidence, the current occupants of the skin are the Pelpuos led by Waa Naa Seidu Pelpuo. The Defendants however insist that the disputed land could not have been granted by Wa Naa Seidu Kofi because it was not his to grant. The evidence adduced was hugely traditional and the principles used when confronted with such is what will establish the root of title of the various claimants of the land and this decision will evaluate acts of recent memory and possession to b deliver a reasoned judgment 1 Reliefs sought by the parties The Plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally for: a) An Order for the Declaration of title and Recovery of possession of ALL THAT piece and parcel of land known as Plot No. 13 Block B situate and lying at the Wa Central Residential Area and more situate between Sinsewuleyiri and Limanyiri with a drainage (gutter) running through the land and bounded to the frontage by the Information Service Department; and to the right by the Uncompleted Community Centre and to the left by Limanyiri. b) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, assigns, heirs and all persons claiming through them or in anyway holding in trust for them from dealing with or interfering with the disputed piece of land. c) Damages for trespass. d) Cost include solicitor’s fees. e) And any other orders or reliefs the Honourable Court deems fit and just. The Defendant however counterclaimed praying for the following reliefs: (a) An order for declaration of title to ALL THAT piece and parcel of land particularly described as Plot Number 13 Block B situate, lying and being at the Wa Central Residential Area. 2 (b) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiff, his workmen, agents, assigns, successors etc from interfering with Defendnats queit and peaceful enjoyment of their (Defendants) family land. (c) Cost of damages (d) Any other order(s) or relief(s) which this Honourable Court may deem meet. Issues Set Down for Trial. The court together with both counsels agreed on these issues for trial, meaning there were no additional issues filed: a) Whether or not the disputed plot was acquired from the Wa Naa by Alhaji Mogtari Osuman and thus became his bona fide property. b) Whether or not ownership in the disputed land was transferred from Alhaji Mogtari Osuman and vested same in plaintiff by virtue of a Statutory Declaration. c) Whether or not the plaintiff exercised ownership over the land in dispute by undertaking to register his interest and title to the land in dispute. d) Whether or not the claim of ownership of the disputed land by the Sinsewuleyiri famiy is valid. e) Any other issue or issues arising out of the pleadings. Respective cases of the parties Plaintiff’s Case 3 Plaintiff is a civil servant with the Controller and Accountant General’s Department and a son of the late Alhaji Mogtari Osuman and lives in Sinsewuleyiri, a section of Wa. The Defendants are siblings …….. Plaintiff earlier in his pleadings and later in his witness statement made a claim that during the lifetime of his father, he owned a piece of land described in his relief “a” he described the land to be numbered Plot No. 13 Block B within the Wa central residential area and that the property was his father’s bona fide. In tracing the root of title of his late father, Plaintiff averred and gave evidence that his late father appraised him of his acquisition before his demise. That his father purchased the piece of land from the Wa Na at the time and exercised possession and ownership over the land without any encumbrance especially during the lifetime of his father and that he did transfer the ownership of Plot No. 13 Block B to him Plaintiff to own and this was evinced in a Statutory Declaration dated 21st day of September, 1989. An exhibit he tendered. That he later took steps to have the land surveyed and so got the Deputy Director of Town & Country Planning (now the Land Use and Spatial Planning Authority) to minute on his application. This too he tendered into court. Plaintiff in leading evidence to assert his possessory influence ver the piece of land, asserted that a brother of his and a witness in the case one Hardi Saaka requested for permission from him to erect a grinding mill on the land and he obliged him. Unknown to Plaintiff that when Hardi went to erect the grinding mill, Mr. Osman Suleman 1st Defendant together with some family members of his from the Sinsewuleyiri family prevented him from erecting the mill and rather claimed ownership to the land and went ahead to allow another person of their preference to operate the grinding mill. 4 That defendants subsequently, through engagements to assert plaintiff’s claim to the land, claimed that it was the royal family that gave them the land but could not say who in the royal family gave them the land. Plaintiff ended his pleading which he spoke to in his witness statement by further describing the land located between Sinsewuleyiri and Limanyiri both adjourning the Wa Na palace. Evidence of PW1 PW1 gave his name as Alhaji Mogtari Osman and hails from Limanyiri, in the Wa municipality and a sibling to Mr. Museibu Mogtar Plaintiff. PW1 told the court that before their father passed away, he summoned all his children before him and disclosed to them that plot No. 13 Block B has been given to Plaintiff. That later his brother informed him one Hardi Saaka requested for part of the land to temporally install a grinding mill, which request he allowed That Hardi Saaka went forth to clear the land for the putting up of his grinding mill and that in the process of clearing the land, he was confronted by some persons from Sinsewuleyiri on who had permitted him to clear the land and his response was Plaintiff did. That the said natives of Sinsewuleyiri on hearing the act of ownership of Plaintiff approached an uncle at the palace called Baba Umar Sofo and Osman Wagigla to convince them to give the land to them instead. According to PW1 Osman Wagigla being the head of the family informed the said natives from Sinsewuleyiri that, the said piece of land was given to Alhaji Osman Mogtari (Plaintiff Father) by Naa Seidu Kofi, the then chief of Wa and therefore they cannot reverse the land to the Sinsewuleyiri people. 5 PW1 went ahead to disclose that Osman Wagigla and Baba Umar Sofo then called Plaintiff to inform u him about what the Sinsewuleyiri people has engaged him to do but they declined. He however named them to be Osman Sulemani ( 1st Defendant) and Mahama Sulemani and that these same persons had approached Alhaji Saanuni at Jangbayiri and informed him of plans to buy a piece of land in town to replace Plaintiff land of which Alhaji Saanuni called Plaintiff and him PW1 to inform them about the plans of 1st Defendant and Mahama Sulemani but they two rejected the overture and went ahead to update a late uncle of theirs popularly called Alhaji One Plug. The Plaintiff ended his evidence by the account of his brother who corroborated his evidence but did not present any other persons he mentioned in his evidence. Defendant’s case The Defendants earlier in their statement of defense and later in the their witness statement denied various portions of the pleadings of the Plaintiff and went ahead to state in further denial thereto that the subject matter land has always been the property of the Sinsew family of Wa and that at no time has the Plaintiff’s late father had any possessory access to the subject matter during his lifetime because the Sinsew Family has been the grantees of that piece of land when the grant was made to them by the Pelpuo Family of Wa Naayiri and doubt how Plaintiff father could make an assignment of what he did not have. On the Statutory Declaration Plaintiff alluded to, Defendant described it to be self- serving and cannot in anyway validly transfer title in the subject land to the Plaintiff in view of the fact that his late father did not have title to the land and that the Defendant family has and presently have protected their interest in the subject land by warding off trespassers like Plaintiff and his workmen and agents and in exercise of that ownership right have granted the 2nd Defendant permission to put up a grinding mill on the land. That he has since operated from the land without any hindrance from anybody including 6 the Plaintiff herein because Plaintiff has no shred of evidence to assert his ownership claim. The Defendants insist that the disputed land was a grant made to the Sinsew Family by the Pelpuo Family of Wa Nyairi acting through its head of family then, Wa – Naa Pelpuo II who settled the predecessors of the Sinsew Family on the Subject land by way of a gift. This gift of a grant they have possessed over the years without any challenge till now. Evidence of DW1 AMADU S. MASHOOD was DW2 who testified for himself and DW1 told the court 1st Defendant is the Head of family and was a member of the Sinsew Family. DW2 told the court that the Plaintiff’s late father had never had possession of the subject land at any point in his lifetime and after his death no member of his family has ever exercised any act of possession over same. Instead their family, the Sinsew Family, has always exercised overt acts of ownership and possession of the subject land ever since they were granted same by the Pelpuo Family of Wa Naayiri. He said contrary to Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff’s father has never owned the subject matter land and therefore could not have validly transferred same to his son (Plaintiff) because he never acquired same from the original owners of the land, the Pelpuo Family of Wa Naayiri and described the purported Statutory Declaration Plaintiff wielded to be self – serving lacking gravitas as a means of transfer of title. The Defendants however claim to be in lawful occupation and possession of the subject matter land and have always protected their interest in it by warding off trespassers like Plaintiff and his workmen, agents etc. Defendants recollects their family in the exercise of its lawful acts of ownership of the subject land granted 1st Defendant the permission to 7 put up a grinding mill on same without any let or hindrance from anybody including the plaintiff herein. The Defendant accuses Plaintiff he does not have any document to establish his claim to the subject land because he alleged grantors are not the lawful owners of the land because the subject land including larger portion of land where currently the Sinsew Family house is built was granted the Sinsew Family by the Pelpuo Family of Wa Nayiri particularly the Pelpuo Family, acting through its then head, Wa –Naa Pelpuo II, settled the predecessors of the Sinsew family on the subject land by way of a customary gift for which their family has exercised overt acts of ownership and possession without any challenge from anybody and invites the court to ignore the reliefs of Plaintiff but attend to his counter claim. Evidence of DW1 Dussie Naa Djongare Mahama Saliou a member of the Pelpuo Royal family of Wa was the witness whose evidence hugely dwelt of traditional evidence and he told the court that he was chosen by the Defendant grantor family to speak to the matters the family was well aware of. The enlightened sub chief had to be diplomatically restrained because he had too much the court needed in terms of historical accounts but significant among what he told the court was that the subject land was originally owned by the Pelpuo family prior to the arrival of the Sinsew Family at Wa sometime in 1795 during the reign of Wa – Naa Pelpuo II. That upon the arrival of the Sinsew Family at Wa, they were settled on the subject land by the said Wa Pelpuo II. The Head of the Sinsew Family at the time was called Shehu Abdul-Kadir and the Wa Naa settled him near the Wa –Naa’s Palace on the subject land because of their role as Islamic clerics to the Wa Naa at the time in matters regarding Islamic and spiritual issues. 8 DW1 told the court the Sinsew family since their settlement on the land have remained on same exercising acts of possession and ownership without any let or hindrance from anyone including the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff’s late father in life never made any adverse claim to the very land because he could not have done so. Under cross examination the witness gave more interesting revelations on the grant to Defendants and I will draw on such when appropriate. The general evidential burden on the parties The suit being a civil case, the onus of proof is as set out in Sections 10, 11, 12 and 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) states a party is required by law to win on the balance of probabilities as under Sections 11 (4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). It remains trite that, in civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff generally especially that defendant has not counter claimed. The provisions of the codification of the common law principle on onus of proof in civil cases as enunciated in Miller v Ministry of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372, 374 which was quoted with approval in the case of Nyame v Tarzan Transport [1973] 1 GLR 8, 16, CA it stated: “The degree is well settled. It must carry a reasonable degree of probability but not so high as is required in a criminal case. If the evidence is such that the tribunal can say: ‘we think it more probable than not’, the burden is discharged, but if the probabilities are equal, it is not”. See also the Supreme Court cases of Adwubeng Vrs Domfeh [1996-97] SCGLR 660, Affisah vrs. Ansah [2005/06] SCGLR 943 @ 948, holding 7 per Lartey JSC and Brempong II vrs. Amofah & Others [2001/02] SCGLR 177, holding 2 and Kofi Sarpong (Deceased) (Substituted by Nana Kwasi Kodua vs. Franklin Adu Bobi Jantuah [2014] 74 G.M.J. 46 9 Similarly, Section 17 (2) of the Evidence Act stipulates that “except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of producing evidence of a particular fact is initially on the party with the burden of persuasion as to that fact”. See also YORKWA vrs. ANSAH [1992-93] GBR 278 @ 282 per Brobbey J.A. (as he then was). The party who bears the burden of producing evidence is only required to produce evidence considered to be sufficient on the balance of probabilities to make his case more probable than not. This rule of thumb is enshrined in Section 11(4) of NRCD 323 as follows: “In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence which on the totality of the evidence leads a reasonable mind to conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence.” In the case of In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands, Adjetey Agbosu & Ors V Kotey & Ors (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court per Wood JSC (as she then was) at page 444 as follows: “it is trite learning that by the statutory provisions of the Evidence Decree 1975 (NRCD 323) the burden of producing evidence in any given case is not fixed but shifts from party to party at various stages of the trial, depending on the issues asserted and or denied”. The Supreme Court reechoed this view in the case of Sumaila Bielbiel V Adamu Dramani & Attorney General (No.3) (2012) 1 SCGLR 370 at 371-372 as follows: “Ordinarily, the burden of persuasion lies on the same party which bears the burden of producing evidence. However, depending upon the pleadings or what facts are admitted, the evidential burden can move onto a defendant. The cumulation on the defendant of the evidential burden on the issues to be tried in a case can result in the right to open the case shifting to the defendant. For instance, where the burden of producing evidence on every issue in a case lies on the defendant, he or she will have the right to open the case, even if the burden of persuasion remains on the plaintiff”. 10 It therefore follows that; the law sometimes follows the common-sense approach. In that case, the burden of persuasion in producing all facts essential to any claim may lie on the person who is making the claim and in this case the Plaintiff must show course why he beliefs sharing/partitioning the family land is/was a better option to the current status quo of the head of family managing it on behalf of the entire family See: Barkers Woode V Nana Fitz (2007-2008) 2 SCGLR 879 Abbey & Ors V Antwi (2010) SCGLR 17 Enekwa V Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (2009) SCLGR 242. Specific Proof Required in cases of Declaration of title to Land The law remains settled on cases hinging on proof required of a party seeking declaration of title to land. In Amoah VI v Okine and Others (J4/59/2013)[2014] GHASC 122 (15 January 2014) the Supreme Court posited that: “The established principle of law requires the Plaintiff to lead clear evidence as to the identity of the land claimed with the land the subject matter of his suit. The authorities are legion. Bisssah v. Gyampoh [1964] GLR 81; Bedu v, Agbi [1972] 2 GLR 238; Anane v. Donkor [1965] GLR 188; Akoto v. Kavege [1984-86] 2 GLR 365; Nyikplokor v. Agbodotor [1987-88] 1GLR 171; Agyei Osae v. Adjeifio [2007-2008] 499; Jass Co. Ltd v. Appau 2[2009] 2 GLR 365.” In the case of Tafali Vrs Yakubu (J4/32/2014) [2018] GHASC 28 (09 May 2018) the Supreme Court quoted with approval the ratio it has earlier laid in In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands [2003-2004] SCGLR 420, the Supreme Court in holding 4 held that: “Although the general principle that a claim for declaration of title or an order for injunction should always fail if the plaintiff failed to establish positively the identity of the land claimed with the land in dispute was sound law, its application was not mandatory where the identity or boundaries of the land claimed was undisputed. Where the identity or the boundaries of the land in dispute as pleaded by the plaintiff was admitted or not 11 denied by the defendant, the applicable principle was that since no issue had been joined, no evidence needed to be led on the identity of the land. In the instant case, however, even though the defendants failed to specifically deny the detailed description of the land as pleaded by the plaintiffs in the statement of claim and therefore the plaintiffs were not enjoined to prove the identity of the land, yet on the evidence they succeeded in discharging that burden through their statutory declaration, exhibit A, which contained a detailed description of the land with full bearings and distances and with an attached plan. Since not a single issue was raised under cross-examination of the first plaintiff witness with regard to the exhibit and its contents, the rule of implied admission for failure to deny by cross-examination would be applicable. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were not bound to produce other witnesses on the same issue of the identification. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal was wrong in its conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the identity of the land in dispute. Fori v Ayirebi [1966] GLR 627, SC and Mantey v Botwe [1989- 90] 1 GLR 479, SC applied” The case of both parties was hugely fought on traditional evidence as no party was present when the grants were made and I will dwell on what the law on that requires of the courts in the evaluation of evidence of that nature. The courts have held that traditional evidence is evidence derived from tradition or reputation or statements of deceased persons with regard to questions of pedigree, ancient boundaries, roots of title and the like when no living witnesses are available to testify to the matters. In giving traditional testimony, the person narrating such evidence mostly has no personal knowledge about the matters to which he is testifying. The same usually applies to the person who also told the person testifying. Traditional evidence can therefore be said to be strictly hearsay but for the provisions of Section 128 and 129 of the Evidence Act. How then can traditional evidence be tested 12 The problem with traditional evidence is that it is mostly carried down through generations by oral tradition. It is therefore possible for the stories to get distorted as it is passed down from generation to generation. The question we are interested in is that when faced with two conflicting traditional accounts upon which different parties base their case, what test should the Court adopt in selecting among the conflicting traditional evidence as to which one is preferable? The leading case in this area is the case of Adjeibi–Kojo v Bonsie (1957) 3 WALR. The test to be adopted was stated in that case as follows: “The dispute was all as to the traditional history which had been handed down by word of mouth from their forefathers. In this regard it must be recognized that, in the course of transmission from generation to generation, mistakes may occur without dishonest motives whatever…. The most satisfactory method of testing traditional history is by examining it in the light of such more recent facts as can be established by evidence in order to establish which of two conflicting statements of tradition is more probably correct” In what appeared to be an elaboration of what constitutes traditional evidence, the SC stated in the holding of Hilodjie v George [2005-2006] SCGLR 974 that: “therefore, findings and decisions of courts may appropriately qualify as evidence of facts in living memory. But evidently in land litigation, proven uninterrupted and unchallenged acts of possession, in the absence of some cogent evidence on record to the contrary, as for example, an unreserved acceptance of crucial parts of the other side’s oral history, cannot be ignored or denied the deserved weight, given that in the first place, by the clear provision of S48 of NRCD 323, such acts raise a presumption of ownership”. The SC added that historical accounts from other sources, textbooks accounts included, which are nothing more than a repeat of the disputed or inconclusive traditional evidence 13 already adduced at the trial, ought to attract very minimal weight, and that such matters ought not be preferred to proven acts of effective ownership. Having drawn from the dicta of the superior courts, caution will be exercised in the evaluation of the oral evidence before me but worthy of reviewing are the recent acts of ownership by the parties: Recent acts of occupation and ownership of the Plaintiff: 1- Plaintiff claims the disputed land was part of the land on which the adjoining structure belonging to his family. 2- Besides the claim to own the land the Plaintiff made a failed attempt to allow a compatriot operate a grinding mill on the land. Acts of ownership of the Defendant: 1- The Defendants have warded off alleged trespassers from the disputed land including the Plaintiff. 2- The Defendants have asserted their ownership claim by allowing a grinding mill to be mounted on the disputed land. As was instructive in Adjeibi-Kojo v Bonsie [1957] WLR 1223 cited supra the principle is that where a court is faced with conflicting traditional evidence and there is little to choose between the stories of the parties in such situation, the law is that the court is required to evaluate the conflicting traditional evidence against undisputed evidence of events and acts of ownership in living memory adduced before the court and opt for the version of the traditional evidence that is consistent with the undisputed evidence. The court however remains to be guarded by the case of In Re Taahyen and Asaago Stools; Kumanin II (substituted by) Oppon v Anin [1998-99] SCGLR 399, where the Supreme Court held cautioning as that: - 14 “In assessing rival traditional evidence, the court must not allow itself to be carried away solely by the impressive manner in which one party narrated his version, and how coherent that version is, it must rather examine the events and acts within living memory established by the evidence, paying attention to undisputed acts of ownership and possession on record; and then see which version of the traditional evidence, whether coherent or incoherent, is rendered more probable by the established acts and events. The party whose traditional evidence such established acts and events support or render more probable must succeed unless there exists, on the record of proceedings, a very cogent reason to the contrary”) Having set the stage and espoused the applicable laws that the evidence should be subjected to, I will present the issues and consolidate a number of issues when appropriate to do to resolve the matters in contention. Application of the law to the evidence Issues a, b and c can conveniently be dealt with together to obtain if the claims of the Plaintiff can be uphheld. The gravamen of the Plaintiff’s case remains that his late father Alhaji Mogtari Osuman obtained a grant from the then chief of Wa (Wa Naa Seidu kofi) at a valuable consideration. The consideration he did not mention and adduced no documentary proof of the grant nor the consideration. Plaintiff through his lawyer tendered into court a statutory declaration executed in 1989 purportedly transferring ownership of the land to him Plaintiff for residential purposes. (see Exhibit B) for which he says he took steps to regularize his title by starting the processes to acquire a lease, this lease till date Plaintiff does not have because Defendant counsel impugns Plaintiff’s inability to be that he had no grantors capable of leasing the land to him. See the discourse beneath in cross examination. Q. When did he ( your father) die 15 A. 2nd February, 1990 that he died Q. And there has not been any development carried out on that land to date A. A lease is being prepared to cover that building Q. There is a firm stand by the Pelpuo's that they will not grant you any lease to that land A. It is not true they made the grant and I will not be going to them for a lease Q. That is why since 1990 you have not been able to have the lease to complete the building. A. That is not the case, the Pelpuo's did not grant the land but Wa-Naa Seidu Kofi who was the chief did but now it’s the term of the Pelpuo's Q. You recollect applying for a lease in 1989 A. Yes, I recollect Q. Ever since then you have not been successful A. Yes, I contacted the Funsi-Naa and other elders and I was advised to wait because they are having land disputes they want to resolve before Q. Wajiegla and Baba were not the heads of family then A. The heads at the time I will not know 16 Q. So you are telling the Court in 1989 you applied to the head and you did not know his name A. I know Wajiegla was around and we know he is our landlord Q. I am putting it to you that it is because you did not know the heads of family that your attempt to obtain the lease failed A. Up till now my understanding is that the issue is unresolved and so they are unable to prepare my lease Q. These people promising you the land have since abandoned you and your family A. They have not at any point abandoned me because when Osman Suleman contacted Wajiegla and Osman Sofo their call was that we wait. From the discourse above it is clear the Plaintiff alludes to two people as his original grantors because by the answer “I know Wajiegla was around and we know he is our landlord” This undoubtedly places the mentioned person as the one seen as the grantor and further when Plaintiff responded to another question he reiterated that fact as in “They have not at any point abandoned me because when Osman Suleman contacted Wajiegla and Osman Sofo their call was that we wait” These pieces of evidence as to the Plaintiff’s grantors is so material for him to be able to press and sustain an ownership claim against the Defendants who have equally claimed. The Plaintiff grantors ideally should have been assembled to prove the grant to his father first before a transfer of ownership to him Plaintiff. Having failed to proof his root of title properly so called it leaves room for the Defendants case to be evaluated and their case 17 is that the land belongs to the Pelpuo family of which that family currently occupies the Waala skin. This they did not only plead but brought a principal member of the family to speak to and respond to cross examination questions to assert the Defendants rival claim. Read the cross examination posture of the Defendant witness. Q. It is your claim that the subject land was originally owned by the Pelpuo family. A. It’s a vast land and all that belongs to us. Q. In your witness statement nowhere have you stated the land is part of a vast land. A. It’s the Nayire land and it belongs to the Pelpuo family. Q. You have also failed in your witness statement to demonstrate how the Pelpuo family came to be owners of the subject matter land. A. We have not gotten there, if we do, I will tell you. Q. I am putting it to you that the subject land in dispute before this Court was granted to plaintiff's father. A. That is to say Alhaji Motari? he is not the one the land was leased to. Q. I put it to you that Alhaji Motari then gave the land to his son (Plaintiff). A. His father did not give him, the land was first given to one Sanbahri. We first gave the land to Plaintiff’s grandfather. When he came to take possession, we had then given the land in front of the toilet to Malam Albdul Salam. By then a family member had 7 rooms around there and so Malam Iman Salia then asked for permission for the site to be used for Islamic prayers. This request was made to the Pelpuos. We then agreed and fell two trees to allow space for the children to sit for Arabic studies. Malam then came in and turned the 7 rooms 18 into a full compound of 14 rooms. At the time, Alhaji Mogtari had then returned from Kumasi. During the time too Naa-Seidu Kofi was reigning. The father of Mogtari then told his son to go in and plead with Naa-Seidu Kofi the Wa- Naa for the remaining land. When he told the Wa-Naa, he responded that he did not own the land but that he will consult his elders because the land was for the Pelpuo's. The Wa-Naa then consulted the oldest elder called Seidu Tagoye of the Yigiehe. So the chief expressed disbelief of the request because it was for Islamic prayers. Mogtari then pleaded for a plot (one plot) with a public toilet in between them. The chief then allowed him and made a grant to him. Before the grant, the Chief's linguists lived on this portion of the land and so we relocated them to Danku to allow the current Mogtari family to construct. So, in summary it was just a plot that was granted to Mogtari Plaintiff’s father, I say this on the back of the fact that I am the trustee of all Pelpuo's family lands. Q. As you confirm that the plaintiff's father was granted land, at the time of plaintiff's father request, the subject matter falls part of the land he was granted. A. That is so, if a plot of 100 X 100 is issued as a plot you cannot extend to plot size more than that. That portion was given to Jabaheri Plaintiff’s grandfather. Q. I am putting it to you that plaintiff's father when he was granted the land he put up a building to a point on the land. A. A full compound was built by Alhaji Mogtari’s junior brother not Plaintiff's father. His brother came to build 14 rooms then but to date it remains uncompleted Q. I put it to you that it was the remaining portion of the land that plaintiff's father granted to him during his life time. A. It is not his father who gave him the place. It was Alhaji Sahanun Mogtari the then Regional Minister that granted him the disputed land by then the place was earlier given 19 to one Abdul Kadiri of the Sensawla family when he came to give Wa-Naa spiritual powers and the Palace did not want him to settle far from the Palace. The Plaintiff’s assertion therefore that, the defendants’ adverse claim to the said land started about 10 years ago has then been made clear by the evidence of DW1 as the dictum remains the reasoning in the Supreme Court decision in the case of Hilodjie and another vrs. George (2005 – 2006) SGCR 974 where the court held that in any action, cause or matter, a party who disputes an issue does not simply rest the case on formal denials either made in examination in chief or “put” or suggested to an opponent under cross- examination…….” Defendant therefore must disclose his root of title, incidence of purchase if acquired by sale or tradition of acquisition if inherited and evidence of acts of unchallenged possession. See: Nana Amuah Gyebu XV V Mondial Veeneer Ltd (2011) 32 MLRG 84 SC. Ago Sai & Ors V Kpobi Tetteh Tsuru (2010) SCGLR 762. I so therefore resolve these two issues against Plaintiff that there is evidence to support his claim that his father was given the disputed land for which he later transferred to him by a statutory declaration. This judgment could have conveniently ended here but since Defendant counter claimed for which that is a full suit as well I must be emphatic that the court prefers the ownership claim of the Defendants to that of Plaintiff because besides the fact that Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence and call witnesses to prove first his fathers root of title for which this decision had earlier pulled extracts from the cross examination of Plaintiff to support that his claim was not well anchored, and for the fact that Plaintiff wields a statutory declaration and proof of title, the law abounds in decided cases that a statutory declaration is no reliable proof of title as was re-echoed in the case of Re Ashalley Botwe Lands; Adjetey Agbosu V Kotey (2003 – 2004) SCGLR where it was held in holding 7 that ------ generally Statutory Declaration per se were self –serving and so of no probative value where the facts as in the instant 20 case had been challenged or disputed. In any event, a Statutory Declaration was not a registered document under the Land Registry Act; 1962 (Act122) nor was it a deed of conveyance, purporting to create or convey an interest in land. Further in Hydraform Estates Ltd V Kumnipa and Agyemang (2014)70 GMJ AT PAGE 58 it was held as follows; therefore in the eyes of the law, the Statutory Declaration Exhibit 9 which formed the basis of the Plaintiff’s root of title to the 75.53 acres of the land at Opoi Gonno , Accra is not a registered document nor deed of conveyance purporting to create or convey interest or title in that land. In law therefore that Statutory Declaration is per se a self-serving document of no probative value. Conclusion & Decision By this depth of evidence, Plaintiff’s claim to be the legitimate owner of the disputed land remains very disputable but the Defendant’s counter claim remains succinct and proven in entirety because he brought DW1 to support their case of having a better rival title from the very grantors who are also royals. I so therefore based on the evidence and law hold that: a- Defendants are declarared to be owners and so have title to ALL THAT piece and parcel of land particularly described as Plot Number 13 Block B situate, lying and being at the Wa Central Residential Area. b- I make an order perpetually injuncting and restraining the Plaintiff, his workmen, agents, assigns, successors etc from interfering with Defendants quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their family land. c- On cost I will make an order of cost of just GHC3000 against Plaintiff so it aids Defendant absorb his legal cost. H/H Jonathan Avogo Circuit Court Judge, Wa 21