Adusei v Mohammed and Another (A1/03/23) [2025] GHADC 230 (29 July 2025)

SITTINGINTHEDISTRICTCOURTATWENCHIINTHEBONOREGION ON MONDAYTHE29TH DAYOFJULY,2025,BEFOREHISWORSHIPISSAHABDUL- WAHAB (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) SUITNO.A1/03/23 BETWEEN EDWARDADUSEI(SUINGPERHISLAWFUL ) ATTORNEY)YAWOPOKUDANQUAHOFWENCHI ) - PLAINTIFF VRS: 1. ISSAKAMOHAMMEDOFWENCHI ) 2. EMMANUELANIMBOATENG(HEADOF ) - DEFENDANTS ANKOBEANKWADUANOYEFRIROYAL ) FAMILY)OFWENCHI ) JUDGMENT The plaintiff herein instituted this action against the defendants seeking from this court and againstthedefendantsthefollowingreliefs; (a) A declaration of title to all that parcel or piece of land numbered as plot number 48, Block‘B’Sector4Extension,Wenchi. (b) Anorderfortherecoveryofpossessionofthesaidplots; 1 (c) Adeclarationthatthe1stdefendanthastrespassedontoplaintiff’sproperty.. (d) Anorderforgeneraldamagesfortrespass; (e) An order for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant, their agents, servants, workmen and assigns and anyone claiming through the defendants, in any way alienatingorinterferingordealingwiththelandspecificallymentionedabove. The 1st defendant herein pleaded not liable to the claims of the plaintiff after same were read and explained to him in Twi. The 2nd defendant pleaded liable and Judgment was entered againsthim. This court upon a careful examination of the particulars of plaintiff’s claim and the pleadings filedbytheparties,thefollowinglegalissuesweresetdownfortrial; (1) Whetheror notsaidbuildingplots numbered48and77 Block‘B’ Sector4Extension, Wenchiarethepropertyoftheplaintiffherein. (2) Whetherornottheplaintiffhasanygoodtitletothesaidplots; (3) Whether or not the plaintiff is deserving of any order for the recovery of possession ofthesaidbuildingplots; (4) Whether or not the defendants have committed any act of trespass onto the said buildingplots; (5) Whetherornottheplaintiffisentitletoanygeneraldamagesfortrespass;and (6) Whether or not an order of this court will lie for a perpetual injunction against the defendant. 2 The overall evidence adduced by the plaintiff in establishing his claims consisted of the testimony of his lawful attorney as contained in his witness statement together with the supplementaryoneadoptedbythecourt,andthetestimonyofhis(plaintiff)solewitness(P.W.1) whoalsotestifiedbeforethecourt. In his evidence in-chief the plaintiff’s attorney said he is Yaw Opoku Danquah. That the plaintiffhadconfidedinhimthathe(plaintiff)neededlandinWenchifordevelopmentandthat as soon as he found any parcel suitable for his purpose he should let him. The attorney said some year ago, one Kwabena Disco who holds himself out as an estate agent approached him (plaintiff’s attorney) and said a parcel of land measuring three (3) plots and close to the parks andGardenswasforsalebytheheadoffamily. That Kwabena Disco informed him (attorney) that the said head family (D2) WHO owns the land was his father-in-law. The attorney said he then asked Kwabena Disco to show him the land so he could convince the plaintiff to by. He was then taken to the land and after which he (Attorney) informed the plaintiff who also inspected the land and agreed to by. That the plaintiff then made a part payment of GH₵3,500.00 of the total purchase price to Kwabena Discoandwhichwasgiventothelandowner(D2). Thattheydemandedtomeet2nddefendantbeforetherestofthemoneywaspaidanddid. That2nd defendant confirmedthattheland belongedto familyof which he(D2) was head. That thebalanceofthepurchasepricewasthenpaidtothe2nddefendant(D2). 3 That together with 2nd defendant they caused a surveyor to measure the land. That land measuredlessthanthe3plotsand2nddefendantpromisedtograntthemtherestoftheplotata differentlocation. That plaintiff then executed an agreement with the 2nd defendant on 14th of July,2017 for the transferofthesaidplotsnumbers77and48Block‘B’Sector4ExtensionWenchi totheplaintiff. That a copy of the said allocation paper has been tendered and marked as Exhibit ‘A’, a statutory declaration was also admitted and marked ‘B’, with the Power of Attorney Marked Exhibit‘C’. Thatplaintiffimmediatelytookpossessionofthelandin2017anddepositedsandonit.Thathe also moulded blocks on the land as proof of accupation. That plaintiff later travelled and appointed him (Attorney) to take care of the land. Then in 2022 he saw that the blocks on the land were no where to be found and someone was developing a structure on the land. That 2nd defendant said he had not allocated any land to anyone when he (Attorney) contracted him (D2). That when they went to spatial planning Department they told them the plot number 48 had been allocated to the 1st defendant and that only plot number 77 is for the plaintiff. That when they informed the 2nd defendant he reported the matter to the police that the 1st defendant had used his (D2) Plot Allocation Form without his (D2) consent and so 2nd defendant caused the spatial planning office to allocate plot number 48 to the plaintiff. Plaintiff said as far as he in concerned plot numbers 48 and 77 belong to him, because 2nd defendant has stated that he did not alienate any part of his land to the 1st defendant. When cross-examined, plaintiff conceded 4 that on his Exhibit ‘A’ (Plot Allocation Letter) no plot number has been stated in relation to the plothe(plaintiff)claimswasallocatedtohim. Plaintiff’s sole witness (P.W.1) told the court he is Kwame Darko Domfeh and that he lives at AkonkontiwaainWenchi.Thatheisamemberof theAnkobeaNkwaduanoYefriRoyal Family of which the second defendant (D2) is the head of family and he (P.W.1) is the husband of the Queenmotherofthesamefamily.P.W.1saidintheyear2013theseconddefendant(D2)whois his (P.W.1) brother in-law informed him (P.W.1) that he was selling their family land situate and being at a place called Low Cost in Wenchi. That the 2nd defendant first informed one Kwabena Disco who held himself as an estate agent to help him sell the land. Then later P.W.1 said Kwabena Disco came to 2nd defendant with an amount GH₵3,500.00 and informed 2nd defendant that the plaintiff herein had bought the land and paid that amount through the lawful Attorney. That Kwabena Disco and 2nd defendant then went to the land to survey same andto do the demarcation. That after the demarcation and allocation the plaintiff thenpaid the balance of the purchase price. Then later the family had an agreement with the plaintiff and he deposited blocks on the land. P.W.1 said that the parcel of land that was allocated to plaintiff unfortunatelyincludedlandthathadbeengiventotheDepartment of Parks andGardens.That theDepartmentofParksandGardensrefusedtoCedetheirlandtothe2nddefendantandsothe plaintiff herein sued the 2nd defendant for the recovery of his money he paid to the 2nd defendant. That 2nd defendant went to the Spatial Planning Department of the Wenchi Assembly for a resolution but was told they could not do anything because the land belonged to the Department of Parks and Gardens. The witness said he then advised the plaintiff to contact the 5 DepartmentofParksandGardenstoseesothatthefamilyof2nddefendantcouldregularizethe conveyancemadetohim. That plaintiff agreed and contracted the Department of Parks and Gardens to relocate from the areasohe(plaintiff)couldtakevacantpossession.P.W.1saidthatnotwithstandingthese,the1st defendant was granted another land close to a church in the same area for which the 1st defendantpaidGH₵5,500.00. That following this payment the 2nd defendant gave the 1st defendant an allocation paper to be taken to the Land use a Spatial Planning Office for allocation. P.W.1 said the church due to some problems with the 2nd defendant, the 1st defendant refunded the GH₵5,500.00 to the 1st defendant and he acknowledged receipt of same. That when the 2nd defendant asked the 1st defendant to return the Plot Allocation Paper, the 1st defendant did not do that and was claiming ownership of plot number 48 Block ‘B’ Sector 4 Extension. P.W.1 said when he heard that he was surprise. That the 2nd defendant then reported the matter to the police that the 1st defendantusedhis(D2)AllocationPaperwithouthis(D2)consent. In his evidence in-chief the 1st defendant told the court he Issaka Mohammed and that he lives inWenchiandisabusinessman.Thathedoesnotknowtheplaintiff’slawfulAttorneyandonly sawhimincourt. Thathe(D1)knowthe2nddefendantwhoishisgrantorandthatehistestifyingforhimselfonly. 1st defendant said the disputed land is situate at a place called Low Cost near the Parks and Gardens in Wenchi ont eh Wenchi-Techiman main road. That the disputed plot is demarcated 6 and numbered as plot number 48 Block ‘B’ Sector 4 Extension by the Town and Country PlanningDepartmentoftheWenchiAssembly. 1st defendant said on or about the year 2017 he met one Seth Nyarko also known as Kwabena Disco(D.W.1)whotoldhimthatthe2nddefendant, EmmanuelAnimBoatenghadaplotofland he wanted to sell. 1st defendant said he expressed interest and Kwabena Disco took him to see 2nddefendantwhere2nddefendantconfirmedheactuallywassellingthedisputedplot. That 2nd defendant then took him (D1) to see the plot. 1st defendant said after the inspection he (D1) then negotiated the price with 2nd defendant and they agree on GH₵3,500.00 as the purchase price. 1st defendant said he made a part payment of GH₵3,000.00 to 2nd defendant leaving a balance of GH₵500.00. That he later paid the GH₵500.00 in the presence of the said Kwabena Disco. 1st defendant said after the payment 2nd defendant prepared a site plan for the plot number 48 Block ‘B’ Sector 4 Extension and same was endorsed. Then later 2nd defendant again gave him (D1) a Plot Allocation paper which 2nd defendant signed himself to confirm the grant of the land (Plot 48) to him (D1). 1st defendant tendered both documents which were marked as Exhibits ‘1’ (Site Plan) and ‘2’ (Plot Allocation Paper) respectively. That the 2nd defendant assured him (D1) that there was no encumbrance on the land and told him (D1) he could start developing 1st defendant said he consequently started development on the land and 2nddefendant(hisgrantor)wasverymuchaware,andneverquestionedhim. 1stdefendantsaidlateroneAttahreportedhim(D1)tothepolicethathehadtrespassedontohis land. He (D1) was then invited by the police where he (D1) denied the claim by the said Attah, that the Town Planning Officers later met them and in demarcating the land, his (D1) plot number 48 Block ‘B’ Sector 4 Extension was shown to be his (D1) land and plot number 77 was 7 for the said Attah, who claimed to be the care taker of the plaintiff herein. That Attah then collectedhis sandandblocks fromplotnumber771st defendant saidhereportedthesettlement back to the police. Then later he was served with the instant suit. 1st defendant said he was granted the disputed plot by the 2nd defendant for a valuable consideration and has therefore divested his proprietary interest in the disputed plot. 1st defendant said the plaintiff therefore not entitle to the reliefs he is seeking from the Honourable Court.1st defendant did not call any witness. I have carefully assessed and evaluated all the evidence adduced before this court. However beforeI statemyobservations I wish tosubmitthatitis tritelearningthatin acivil trial suchas this instant one, the law imposes the burden on the plaintiff or the party who in his or her writ ofsummonorpleadingsraiseissuethatareessentialtothesuccessoftheirclaim. Thepartyassumestheonusofproof.ThisprincipleoflawabovewassetoutinthecaseofFaibi Vs State Hotels Corp {1968} GLR, 176. This principle above re-echoes the statutory burden imposed on the plaintiff Under Section 11 (4) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (Act 323) which provides that; “ In other circumstances, the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that theexistenceofthefactwasmoreprobablethanitsnon-existence”. Thelawasstatedaboverequiresthepartycarryingtheburdentoproducesufficientevidenceto makeoutaclaimonthepreponderanceofprobabilitiesasstatedinSection12(1)ofAct232. Section 12 (1) of Act 232 states that; “ Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by the preponderance of probabilities”. Thus persuasive burden is 8 further defined in Section 12 (2) of Act 323 as “ the degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the court and by which the court is convinced that the existence of the fact was more probable thanitsnon-existence”. Havingthereforestatedthelawontheburdenof proof,itimportanttodiscuss theobservations made from the evidence led by the parties herein and from which certain findings of fact have beenmadethereof. Firstly,ithasbeennotedthattheplaintiffcontendedthatheacquiredthetwo(2)disputedplots ie plots 77 and 48 from the 2nd defendant herein by or through purchase. This means the plaintiff’s claim is that the 2nd defendant granted the said two (2) plots to him (plaintiff) for somevaluableconsideration.Itthereforeflowsfromthesaidclaimbytheplaintiffthathetraces histitletothedisputedplotsorlandtothe2nddefendanthereinashisgrantor.Thisisespecially so when the plaintiff averred that the 2nd defendant made the grant to him as head of the Ankobea-Nkwaduano Yefri Royal Family which also means the land was alienated by the 2nd defendant for andon behalf of thesaid familybecauseit is a familyland. This saidascertain by the plaintiff means that in proving his title the needed his grantor, who is the 2nd defendant to do so. However the plaintiff herein, instead of getting t he 2nd defendant (grantor) to join him (plaintiff) as 2nd plaintiff to prove his title, that was not but plaintiff rather sued the grantor as 2nd defendant, clearly, I find this not only strange and irregular, but also avoidably fatal to the caseoftheplaintiff. Second, upon a cursory assessment of the evidence I observed some inconsistences and or contradictorsintheevidenceoftheplaintiffasprofferedbyhislawfulattorneyandthatoftheir sole witness (P.W.1). In dealing with these contradictions, I wish to state that in seeking an 9 order for declaration of title to land, be it a farmland or a properly demarcated area for the purpose of development, the location and Identity of the land is crucial and same must be properly established or prove, I must however state here that the plaintiff herein eventhough said he sought the declaration for some plots with numbers 77 and 48 of Block ‘B’ Sector 4, the overall evidenceled by theplaintiff ( iethe testimonyof his lawful attorneyand that of his sole witness,P.W.1)didnotestablishthis claim.Indeedboththeplaintiff’sattorneyandP.W.1claim thatthe2nddefendant soldlandtotheplaintiffatalocation wheretheDepartment ofParks and Gardens is situate, but none stated that the said land sold to the plaintiff was the said plots numbers 77 and 48. They both only noted that after the 2nd defendant sold the land, the 2nd defendant andoneKwabenaDisco(whogot theplaintifftobuy theland) thenwenttotheland to have same surveyed and demarcated. So the question then is, what was the identify of the land that the 2nd defendant purportedly sold to plaintiff and for which the plaintiff paid the GH₵3,500.00 to the 2nd defendant through Kwabena Disco? Was it the plots 77 and 48 which were sold to the plaintiff? And if it was those plots, then what was the purpose of the survey and demarcation that was done after the payment by the plaintiff? These are very patient questionsthattheplaintiffsevidencefailedtoprovideanswerstoandthatobviouslydidhelpin establishingtheidentityoftheplotstheyareclaiming. Andagain,I muststatethateventheplotallocationletterorchittheplaintiffsaidwasissuedto himbythe2nddefendant(whichExhibit‘A’herein)hasnoplotnumberonit. This makes the issues about the identity of the plots plaintiff is claiming even more confusing andunclear. 10 On the issue of contradictions, it must be stated that the plaintiff through one Kwabena Disco bought a parcel of land measuring three (3) plots and close to the Parks and Gardens from the 2nd defendant (See paragraph 4 of plaintiff Attorney’s Evidence/Witness Statement). And that after having satisfied him (plaintiff) with the features of the said land the plaintiff then paid GH₵3,500.00 as part of the purchase price through the same Kwabena Disco to the 2nd defendant as the vendor. Without however stating how much was agreed upon by the parties as the purchase price or total consideration for the purported sale, the plaintiff only stated the GH₵3,500.00 as part p payment made for the land said to measure 3 plots. So clearly from that ascertion, it means that the land the plaintiff was granted measured 3 plots, even though they indicated it later turned out to measure a little less than the 3 plots. (See paragraph 12 of plaintiffAttorney’sevidence). Thenagain,theplaintiffthroughhislawfulAttorneystatedthatuponmeetingthe2nddefendant and Kwabena Disco as he requested, he paid the remaining amount or balance of the undisclosedpurchasepricetothe2nddefendant. It was after the final payment that the 2nd defendant execute an agreement transferring the disputedplots 77and48Block‘B’Sector4Extensiontohim(plaintiff)andthesaiddocumentis the Allocation Paper tendered and Marked as Exhibit ‘A’. The fundamental question that has not been answer by these submissions of the plaintiff is how many plots the 2nd defendant sold tohim? Werethey3plots whichheclaims laterwasa littleless,or 2plots.Andif theywerethree(3)or two (2) plots at what point were they demarcated and numbered when as a matter of fact no such indication was given at the time the plaintiff claimed he paid for the land. And again 11 contrarytotheclaimby theplaintiff as perhis paragraph 13of theAttorney’s evidencethatthe 2nd defendant granted plots number 77 and 48 to the plaintiff, through Exhibit ‘A’, the said Exhibit‘A’whichistheplotAllocationchitorpaper,hasnoplotnumbersonsame. In fact the said Exhibit ‘A’ is completely blank with only two (2) thumbprints on one Anim Boateng Emmanuel (D2 herein) described as the Ankobea Abusuapanin and another person named Nana Amoakowea Bessa III also described as the Ankobeahemaa of Wenchi. No signature or mark appeared on the exhibit ‘A’ for the Applicant which in my view is the plaintiff herein. So I do not actual see how this court can fairly rely on the said Exhibit ‘A’ in making a proper determination of the title of the plaintiff. And for the claim that the 2nd defendant transferred the said two (2) plots to the plaintiff through Exhibit ‘A’ (Allocation Chit or paper) that cannot be support by law as it has been held in the case of Boateng No. 2 Vs ManuNo.2&Another{2007-2008}. The legal principle in the above case is that the Plot Allocation Chit or paper is not an instrument or document affecting land in terms of the transfer of interest such as a lease, mortgage,assignmentetc.Sograntedeventhattheplaintiff’sexhibit‘A’haddisclosedtheplots soldtohim(plaintiff)bythe2nddefendant,thatalonewouldnothavesurfaceofatransferofthe interestofthe2nddefendanttohim(plaintiff). ItmustbestatedthatifanAllocationChithasbeenheldnottobeaninstrumentoftransferthen it means on the true and proper construction of Section 32 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) merely exultation an allocation chit (Exhibit ‘A’) can not amount to a transfer, that is granted eventhattheExhibit‘A’hereinhaddisclosedtheplotnumbersincontentionnow.Section32of the Land Act, Act 1036 is on general provisions on transfer of interest in land. It states that “ A 12 holderof aninterestorrightinlandmay,byaninstrument,transferthatinterestorrighttoany personwithorwithoutconsideration”.Andagaintheclaimbytheplaintiffas perparagraph13 thatexhibit‘A’wasexecutedonthe14thdayofJuly,2017,thatclaimisnotalsosupportedbythe saidExhibit ‘A’ as nosuch datecanbefoundon theexhibitunder reference.And inExhibit‘B’, the Statutory Declaration executed by 2nd defendant reference is made in paragraph 4 to the same date (14th July,2017) as the day the 2nd defendant transferred the interest to the plaintiff and yet no evidence has been provided by the plaintiff for such purported transfer as the date cannotbefoundonexhibit‘A’.ThesaidExhibit‘B’whichistheStatutoryDeclarationissaidto have executed on the 25th day of July,2022, that was 5 clears years after the purported transfer madebythe2nddefendantinJuly,2017. These in my considered view are very serous inconsistent statements that cast some unavoidable doubts on the authenticity of the plaintiff’s claim of title to the disputed plots or land. It is again important to state that the plaintiff’s claim that he was granted the disputed plots in the year 2017 was hugely contradicted by the testimony of his sole witness (P.W.1) who is Kwame Darko Domfeh. He told the court in paragraph 10 of his testimony contained in his witness statement that, in that year 2017 the plaintiff took the 2nd defendant and his family to court for refusing to grant him a portion of their land as promised and after taking his money. And that this was after the Parks and Gardens Department laid adverse claim to a certain land the 2nd defendant had shown the plaintiff and which said land the Department of Parks and Gardens was in full and active possession of. That means that there was no grant or could not have been any grant of any plot numbers 77 and 48 to the plaintiff in that same 2017 when the 13 same plaintiff was in court with the 2nd defendant and his family. In paragraph 14 P.W.1 again stated that it took the intervention of the plaintiff himself eventually to see the Parks and Gardenstoallowthefamilyof2nddefendanttoconveythelandtohim(plaintiff). So very obviously there could not have been any effective alienation of the said plots in the midstofalltheseissuesintheyear2017asclaimedbytheplaintiff. From the evidence, it has also been observed that the 1st defendant herein Issaka Mohammed toldthecourtthatthedisputedplotnumber48Block‘B’ Sector4 Extension was demarcatedby the Town and Country Planning Department at the time and which said plot is situate at the Low-CostareaandneartheParksandGardensinWenchialongtheWenchi-Techimanroad. The 1st defendant said in the year 2017 he (D1) was granted the said plot number 48 Block ‘B’ Sector 4 Extension by the second defendant through one Kwabena Disco. This was also he had informedthesaidKwabenaDiscoof his (D1) desiretoacquirea plot.1st defendant saidhepaid a total of GH₵3,500.00 to the 2nd defendant Emmanuel Anim Boateng herein. 1st defendant tenderedtheplotallocationpaper/chitpreparedforhimbythesaidseconddefendantaswellas a plan of the land which were dully marked as Exhibit ‘1’ and ‘2’ respectively with Exhibit ‘2’ (The Plot Allocation) signed by the second defendant. It must however be stated that plaintiff per his lawful Attorney told the court 2nd defendant Emmanuel Anim Boateng) never granted the said plot number 48 or any plot to the 1st defendant, (See paragraph 22 of his witness statement or evidence) and that the 1st defendant even lodged a criminal complaint with the policeagainstthe1stdefendantforusinghis(D2)PlotAllocationFormwithouthisconsent. 14 This claim by the plaintiff has however been controverted by is own witness (P.W.1) ie Kwame Darko Domfeh who told the court in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of his witness statements now has testimony that the 2nd defendant granted a plot to the 1st defendant following the payment of GH₵5,500.00 for the said plot. In paragraph 18 of his testimony P.W.1 told the court that followingthepaymentoftheamountstatedabovethe2nddefendant,the2nddefendantgavethe 1st defendant a plot allocation paper to be taken to the land use and spatial planning office.The witness (P.W.1) however noted that due to some problems that emanated between a church knowasBloodofJesusChurchand the2nddefendantovertheland,the2nddefendantrefunded the 1st defendant money to him (D1). So clearly it cannot be the case as claimed by the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant never allocated any plot to the 1st defendant. And even that, it can be gleaned also from the evidence that P.W.1’s claim that 1st defendant’s money was refunded to himisnotsupportedorcorroboratedbyanyevidenceeitherdocumentaryororal. Indeed, I must also state that I have dutifully perused the detailed and copious written submission or address by counsel for the plaintiff and wish to posit that the position taken by learned counsel on the issue of the allocation paper and site plan tendered by the 1st defendant is not supported by the evidence before this court. Counsel took the view that the said Exhibits ‘1’ and ‘2’ are not genuine and that they were used illegally by the 1st defendant without the authority of original owner who is the 2nd defendant herein. This conclusion by counsel, is wapped as their own witness (P.W.1) testified to the contrary. And as already observed above in this Judgement, P.W.1 Kwame Darko Domfeh said 2nd defendant gave 1st defendant a plot andissuedhimwith thesaidPlotAllocation paper after hehadrecovered payment fromthe1st defendant. 15 So itcannotbethecaseas counselwants this court tobelievethatsamePlotAllocation paper is notgenuineandillegallyusedbythe1stdefendant. Finally, I wish to submit, and by way of emphasis, that the failure by the plaintiff herein to get the 2nd defendant to either join him as plaintiff because he is his (plaintiff) grantor or to a least get him (D1) testify for him in proof, of his title to the disputed land has proved very fatal to the case of the plaintiff. Thus notwithstanding the fact that counsel for theplaintiff noted in his writtenaddress that the 2nd defendant had admittedliability to theclaims of theplaintiff, when same were read to him (D2) and that the 2nd defendant told the court that the plaintiff is entitle toallthereliefs. I take the view, that on the strength of the law and as per the legal issues set down for trial in this case I was not just enough for the 2nd defendant to appear as a defendant and tell thecourt heisliabletotheclaimsoftheplaintiff,wheninfactheistheplaintiff’sgrantor. The first issue for trial here is whether or not theplaintiff had valid title to theplots he claimed and the traced his root of title to the said plots to the 2nd defendant. So it was incumbent on the plaintiff to insist that the 2nd defendant and his Ankobea Nkwaduano Yefri Royal Family who are his grantor, join him in establishing his title. They are the ones who ought to convince the courtthatthegavetheplaintiffa goodtitletotheland.Asitis tritelearningperthe“Nemodat quod non habet” rule, which provides that one, cannot give what he does not have. So if was the case that the said plots including the disputed plot number 48 existed and belonged to the 2nddefendantandhisfamilyatthetimeofthepurportedgrant,thenthe2nddefendantowedthe plaintiffaverysacreddutytohelpdefendhistitle.Buthefialed. 16 The law ahs been set out in the case of Nana Ama Gyebu XV Vs Mondial/Veneer C. Ltd (2011) 32 MLRG 84, SC, by the Supreme Court that in a situation where a party claims ownership of land,thesaidpartymustprove; (a) His/Herrootoftitletotheland; (b) Theincidenceofhisacquisition;and (c) Providedevidenceofhisactsofunchallengedpossessionoftheland. Thenin thecaseof OgbameyTetteh Vs OgbameyTetteh {1993-94}GLR, 353 the SupremeCourt held that “ In an action for the declaration of title to land, a plaintiff who failed to establish the rootofhistitlemustfailbecausesuchadefaultwasfataltohiscase”. FromtheevidenceandtheaboveassessmentofthesaidevidenceIfoundthefollowingasfacts; (1) Thatthetherewassomearrangementbetweentheplaintiffandthe2nddefendantfor theacquisitionoflandbytheplaintifffromthe2nddefendant. (2) That consequent to the said arrangement, the 2nd defendant took money from the plaintiff and showed him a parcel of undermarketed and number land at a location neartheParksandGardensinWenchi. (3) ThattheplaintiffcouldnottakepossessionofthesaidlandastheParksandGardens laidadverseclaimtothesaidland. (4) Thatthedisputedplots77and48werenottheplotsallocatedtotheplaintiffasthere is not evidence to support any such claim and not even the Plot Allocation Paper (Exhibit‘2’)tenderedbytheplaintiff. 17 Inresolvingtheissuessetdownfromtheabovefindingsoffactandthelawstatedabove,Iwish tostatethattheplaintifffirstlyhasnotestablishedorprovedhistitletothedisputedplotaswas requiredofhimperthelawontheburdenofproof; Secondly, the plaintiff has not also lead any evidence to establish that he is owner of the said plotsandcanthereforerecoveranypossession. Again, the plaintiff has not also established any act of trespass committed by the 1st defendant on the disputed plot number48. As hehas been shown rather from theevidence per plaintiff’s own witness testimony (P.W.1) the 2nd defendant granted the 1st defendant the plot first and after the 1st defendant paid for same to the 2nd defendant. So he (D1) could not have been a trespassoronalandhewasdulygranted. From the law as stated and the overally evidence adduced by the parties, it is my valued conclusionthattheplaintiffhasfailedtoprovehisclaimsandsamefailed. Thereasonfortheaboveconclusioninclude; (1) That the plaintiff’s claim that he acquired the disputed plots from the 2nd defendant andhisfamilyhasnotbeproved. (2) Thattheplaintiffalsofailedtoestablishhisroottotitletothelandasrequiredbylaw. (3) That the plaintiff also has not established any act of trespass by the 1st defendant on thedisputedland; (4) Thatnodamageshavebeenprovedasaresultofanytrespassontotheland. (5) That the plaintiff has also failed to prove his claims on the preponderance of the probabilitiesandasrequiredbylaw; 18 Theplaintiff’scaseagainst1stdefendantisdismissedinitsentirely. CostofGH₵7,000.00isawardedagainsttheplaintiffandforthe1stdefendant. Counsel  Mr.PrinceBensonEsq forplaintiff.  Mr.SimonAbleduEsq forthe1stdefendant …………SGD……………… H/WISSAHABDUL-WAHAB (MAGISTRATE) 19