Vidza v Solomon and Others (G/WJ/DG/ A1/15/20) [2024] GHADC 768 (17 October 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WEIJA, ACCRA, ON THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024, BEFORE HER WORSHIP RUBY NTIRI OPOKU (MRS), DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUIT NO: G/WJ/DG/ A1/15/20 MICHAEL G. VIDZA PLAINTIFF VRS 1. BABA SOLOMON 2. SISTER DZIFA DEFENDANTS 3. SISTER MARY 4. SISTER ELLEN PLAINTIFF IS PRESENT AND REPRESENTED BY NANA AKUA APPIAGYEI MENSAH ESQ. DEFENDANTS ARE ALL ABSENT. JUDGMENT Plaintiff filed a writ of summons and particulars of claim at the registry of this court on 10th September 2020 against the defendants for the following reliefs; 1. An order of eviction against the defendants from plaintiff’s land situate at Tuba 2. Removal of all structures (containers) erected by 3rd and 4th defendants on plaintiff’s land 3. Costs and any further orders as the honourable court may deem fit. On 11th November 2020, 1st defendant caused his lawyer Muniru M. Kassim Esq of Obour, Minta and Co. Chambers to file entry of conditional appearance and on 23rd February 2021, he filed a statement of defence. The plaintiff filed a reply on 24th May 2021 and joined issues with the defendant. The 1st defendant informed the court on 13th October 2022 that his name was Baba Yaara and not Baba Solomon. According to him, he has never consulted the services of a lawyer to file any process on his behalf in court. He added that the notice of conditional appearance filed on 11th November 2020 as well as the statement of defence were not filed on his instructions. Interestingly, on 24th November 2022, Counsel on record for the defendant attended court and prayed the court for leave to file an application to join a member of the family of one Abdul Nasiru Mohammed Adams, the alleged owner of the land the subject matter of this dispute. Subsequently for unknown reasons Counsel for the 1st defendant and all defendants failed to attend court or give any reasonable explanation for their absence from court even though hearing notices had been served on all defendants. The court proceeded without the defendants by allowing the plaintiff to prove his claim pursuant to order 25 r1(2)(a) of the District Court Rules 2009, C.I.59. The issue set down for determination by the court is whether or not the plaintiff is the owner of the land the subject matter of this dispute and if so whether he is entitled to evict defendants from the land. Plaintiff’s case Plaintiff’s case is that he acquired the land the subject matter of this dispute in 1994 from the Akramanaa Family of Ngleshie Amanfro through the chief of Ngleshie Amanfro and the head of the Akramanaa family with the consent of all the elders following which an indenture was issued to him by his grantors on 4th May 1999. It is plaintiff’s further case that he attempted to register his land in the year 2000 however by a letter from the Lands Commission, he was informed that same could not be done because the land was state land. According to plaintiff, he entered onto the land and put up two single rooms on one side of the land and made a foundation of the main building on the other side. He added that during that time, there were a number of land guards in the area who constantly harassed land owners. The 1st defendant who was a land guard approached plaintiff and requested for permission to live in one of his single rooms and after much persuasion, he allowed the 1st defendant to live in one of he single rooms as a caretaker to also prevent other land guards from harassing him or his quiet enjoyment of the property. Plaintiff testified that he gave the second room to one Alex Ahiakonu now deceased to reside on the land as caretaker. Plaintiff testified further that after the death of the caretaker, 1st defendant rented out the second single room to the 2nd defendant without his knowledge and consent and has failed to give him any monies or rendered accounts of rents received to him. Plaintiff added that 1st defendant has rented out a portion of the land to 3rd and 4th defendants who have mounted containers on the land without his knowledge and consent. Plaintiff stated that he wants to continue with development of his land and as a result he has given several verbal notices to defendants to yield vacant possession of his land to him to no avail. Plaintiff stated further that he is a member of the land owners association of the area and pays dues to the said Association as well as payments to the Ngleshie Amanfro Divisional stool. Plaintiff added that a search conducted at the Lands Commission indicated that the land the subject matter of this dispute belonged to his grantors, the Akramanaa family of Ngleshie Amanfro. THE BURDEN OF PROOF In civil cases, the general rule is that the party who in his pleading or his writ of summons raised issues essential to the success of his case assumes the burden of proof. The burden only shifts to the defendant to lead sufficient evidence to tip the scales when on a particular issue the plaintiff leads some evidence to prove his claim. The standard of proof is proof on a preponderance of probabilities. See section 12 of the Evidence Act 1975, NRCD 323. In Takoradi Flour Mills v Samir Faris [2005-2006] SCGLR 882, it was held as follows’ “It is sufficient to state that this being a civil suit, the rules of evidence require that the plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to make out his claim on the preponderance of probabilities as defined by section 12(2) of the Evidence Act 1975, NRCD 323. In assessing the balance of probabilities, all the evidence be it that of the plaintiff or defendant must be considered and the party in whose favour the balance tilts is the person whose case is the more probable of the rival versions and is deserving of a favourable verdict.” In resolving the issue before this court, it is trite that a person asserting title to land must prove the root of his title, mode of acquisition and various act of possession over the land. In Modial Veneer (GH) Ltd v Amuah Gyebu XV (2011) SCGLR 446, the Supreme Court held as follows; “In land litigation, …the law requires the person asserting title and on whom the burden of persuasion falls…to prove the root of title, mode of acquisition and various acts of possession exercised over the subject matter of litigation. It is only where the party has succeeded in establishing these facts on a balance of probabilities that the party would be entitled to his claim.” From the evidence, the plaintiff has demonstrated to this court that he traces his title to the Akramanaa Family of Ngleshie Amanfro who transferred interest in the disputed land to him through a lease dated 4th May 1999 marked as Exhibit A. He again tendered a search report from the Lands Commission which showed that the disputed land belonged to his grantors. With regard to acts of possession exercised over the land the subject matter of this dispute, plaintiff testified that he constructed two single rooms as well as a foundation for the main building on the four corners of the parcel of land granted to him by the Akramanaa family. He tendered pictures of the foundation and same was admitted and marked as Exhibits B and B1. The following information was also elicited, Q: Apart from the two single rooms, did you put up any other structures on the land? A: I constructed a main building foundation Q:Can you tell this court if the foundation is still on the land? A: Yes it is on the land Q: Do you have any evidence to show the said foundation on the land? A: Yes I do. I wish to tender Exhibits B and B 2 Plaintiff’s witness Linus Freeman Amedaa corroborated the story of the plaintiff when he testified as follows; Q: Can you tell the court how you know Michael Vidza A: I have known him since 1990. I was building a house for his brother . He told me he liked the way I built his brother’s house and he requested for me to build a house for him. He discussed with me that he needed a land at Galilea. I told him I knew the chief of Amanfro called Nii Kwarshie Gborlor and that he can get him a land. I went with him to the chief who instructed someone called Eric to show him the land. In a week’s time, the plaintiff called me and we went together where he made payment for the land to Nii Kwashie Gborlor. Because i was the one who sent him to see the chief, I made the chief work on the land documents for him. Plaintiff paid for two plots. It is plaintiff’s evidence that at all material times since he purchased the land in 1999 he has been in active possession by putting the 1st defendant and one Alex Ahiakonu deceased on the land. Plaintiff testified further that he is an active member of the Canal Avenue Residence Association which is an association of land owners in the area by paying monthly dues. He tendered Exhibit C being receipts evidencing payments of monthly association dues. Again Plaintiff tendered Exhibit E being receipts evidencing payments to the stool as symbolic acts of ownership. The defendants on the other hand failed to attend court to prove their assertion that the land the subject matter of this dispute belonged to one Abdul Nasiru Adams. In Ankumah v City Investment Co. Ltd [2007-2008] SCGLR 1064, Adinyera JSC held as follows; “A Court is entitled to give a judgment in default as in the instant case if the party fails to appear after notice of the proceedings had been given to him. For then it would be justifiable to assume that he does not wish to be heard. The defendant cannot take cover under these procedural lapses to attack a judgment that has in the circumstances been regularly obtained.” From the totality of the evidence before me, I find that plaintiff has been able to prove his ownership and title to the land the subject matter of this dispute on a balance of probabilities. He is therefore entitled to recovery of possession of the land the subject matter of this dispute from the defendants. Accordingly defendants are ordered to vacate from the land and yield up vacant possession to the plaintiff forthwith. 3rd and 4th defendants are ordered to remove all structures erected from the land at their own costs. Costs of GHC20,000.00 is awarded in favour of plaintiff against all defendants.