SACKEY VRS AGO & 2 OTHERS (H1/51/2020) [2021] GHACA 21 (16 December 2021)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ACCRA AD. 2021 CORAM: JUSTICE SENYO DZAMEFE J. A. (PRESIDING) JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH J. A. JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS) J. A. CIVIL APPEAL No: H1/51/2020 16TH December, 2021 SAMUEL ADJIN SACKEY VRS SAMUEL ADJEI AGO ANDREWS TETTEH AKUETTEH WILLIAM ADJEI TAWIAH PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT DODOO, JA (MRS) This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court (Land Division) dated 15th January, 2019. In this Judgment, the Plaintiff/Appellant will be referred to as the Appellant while the Defendants/Respondents would be referred to as the Respondents. The Appellant’s claim against the Respondents was for: a) Declaration of Title to land situate and lying at New Frafraha, Accra bounded on the North East by Mantey Farms, measuring 180 ft more or less, on the South West by Lessors land measuring 200 ft more or less on the South East by Dodowa Road measuring 500 ft more or less, on the North West by Lessor’s land measuring 500 ft more or less and containing an approximate are a of 2.25 acre more or less. b) Recovery of Possession of said parcel of land. c) Damages for trespass d) Declaration that Land Title Certificate No. GA 12050 has been expunged from the Record since January 1999 or alternatively, e) An order expunging Land Title Certificate No. GA 12050 from the records of the Land Title Registry as it having been issued irregularly and/or unlawfully. f) Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants and /or their agents, servants, workmen, privies, assigns or whomsoever from howsoever entering upon the property and or interfering with Plaintiff’s rights to enjoyment of the said property. It was the Appellant’s case that he acquired the land, subject matter of this dispute by virtue of an indenture dated 16th April, 1983 executed between himself and Nii Opoti Adjei Komey, Head and Lawful representative of the Agbawe Family of Frafraha, adjudged owners of Frafraha lands. He stated that on obtaining this document, he left same with a relative to be presented to the Lands Commission for registration. He further took physical possession of the land by erecting corner pillars, constructing a fence wall and build some shops and installed a caretaker thereon. He claimed to have been in undisturbed possession of the land until recently when the Respondents purporting to be owners of the land entered onto it, destroyed farm produce and started construction works. As a result, he instituted the instant suit. The 1st Respondent in his Statement of Defence averred that the Appellant’s grantor, Nii Opoti Adei Komey, had never had title in the land in order to pass it on to the Appellant. He contended that the disputed land formed part of a larger parcel of land being ancestral land owned by the Adjei Kwashie family, Adjei Kpabi and Sowah Klotia families of Oyarifa as allodial owners and of which he happened to be an elder and a principal member. It was his case that the parcel of land known as the Amanfro Koo was bounded on the North West by the Kplen Koo being the Kplenwe family lands measuring 3435 ft more or less, and on the North-East by the said Kplenwe family lands measuring 2400 ft more or less on the South-East by the Accra-Dodowa Road measuring 6820 ft more or less on the South by the Agbawe family lands of Adenta measuring 2200 ft more or less on the South-West by the Accra-Aburi Road measuring 3700 ft more or less on the North by the Owusuwe family and measuring 3100 ft more or less on the North West by the Owusuwe family and measuring 3500 more or less covering an approximate area of 624.16 acres or 282.78 hectares. He also stated that the ownership of the said parcel of land by the Adjei Kwashie, Adjei Kpabi and Sowah Klotia families was confirmed in a judgment of the High Court, Accra dated 21st June, 2005 in a suit entitled Nii Sowah Okataban II vrs. Samuel Adjei Ago. He also said that the families were holders of a Land Title Certificate No. GA 12050. As a result, the Appellant had no cause of action against him. He proceeded to put in a counterclaim for the following reliefs: (i) Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at the Amanfro Koo bounded on the North-East by Mantey Farms, measuring 180 ft more or less, on the South-West by Lessor’s land measuring 200 ft more or less on the South-East by Dodowa Road measuring 200 ft more or less, on the North-West by Lessors land measuring 500 ft more or less and containing an approximate area of 2.25 acres more or less. (ii) Recovery of Possession of the said parcel of land. (iii) Damages for trespass. The Appellant in Reply stated that the High Court Judgment vesting allodial ownership of Frafraha lands in the 1st Defendant was given per incuriam in the light of the Supreme Court Judgment in Nartey v. Mechanical Lloyd declaring the Agbawe Quarter (his grantors) of La as owners. And therefore the 1st Respondent was not entitled to counterclaim against him. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents in their defence averred that the land in dispute was Amanfro Koo land which was distinct from Frafraha lands. It was their claim that it was rather the Appellant who had trespassed on their land. In view of that they put in a counterclaim for the following reliefs: a) Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land lying and being at Adenta and forming part of the vast parcel of land commonly known as Adentan land and bounded on the North by a proposed road measuring there 200 ft more or less on the North-East by Plaintiff’s family land measuring there 160 ft more or less on the North again by Plaintiff’s family land measuring 90 ft more or less on the South by a proposed road measuring there 70 ft and 90 ft more or less and on the West by the Accra-Aburi Road measuring there 245 ft more or less and covering an area of 1.03 acres. Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land known as Amanfro Koo lands. b) Recovery of Possession. c) Damages for Trespass. d) An order of perpetual injunction restraining Appellant by himself or his workmen, assigns or anybody claiming through him form further acts of trespass on the Amanfro Koo lands. The Appellant in Reply stated that the lands were vested in the Agbawe Quarter by virtue of the Supreme Court Judgment in the Nartey v. Mechanical Lloyd case. Further decisions of the High Court in Nii Kplen We Family of Agbawe v. James Nii Mensah and Nii Komey Mensah Larsey and others v. Daniel Anum Adjei and Others had also confirmed that allodial title in Frafraha lands was vested in the Agbawe Quarter. He contended further that the Land Title Certificate No. GA12050 was wrongly issued to the Respondents and in furtherance of this, the Land Title Registrar had written to the Respondents withdrawing the said certificate. The following issues were set down for trial: 1. Whether or not the land in dispute forms part of the lands of the Agbawe family of Frafraha or that of the Adjei Kwashie, Adjei Kpabi and Sowah Kotia families in Accra. 2. Whether or not the Plaintiff has been in possession of the land in dispute since 1983. 3. Whether or not Land Certificate No. G12050 was irregularly and wrongly issued to the predecessors or grantors to the Defendant. 4. Whether or not the Defendants have trespassed onto Plaintiff’s land. 5. Whether the Plaintiff has any legal interest in the disputed land. 6. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to his claim against the Defendants. After a trial on the merits, the trial court held that on its review of the evidence at its disposal, the Appellant had not made out a case worthy of having a judgment made in his favour. It was held that he had not clearly indicated the size of his land. The court found that the Appellant had relied on Exhibit D which was a judgment in respect of Frafraha village yet the said Exhibit had neither a site plan nor a description for which one could construe that it extended to the subject matter in dispute which the Appellant referred to as New Frafraha and which the Respondents called Amanfro Koo. The court also held that it could not rely on the Appellant’s Exhibit A as there were doubts surrounding it which were revealed during cross-examination and also due to the fact that it had not been registered. The court also held that it did not find in the judgment tendered as Exhibit E that the court had ordered for the cancellation of Land Title Certificate No. GA 12050 but had only said that the transaction that had been undertaken by the individual co-defendants on the basis of the Respondents’ family Title Certificate No. GA 12050 was null and void to the extent that the Registrar of Lands had ordered its return. The court also found that the evidence of Appellant’s long and undisturbed possession was not challenged by the Respondents. The court held further that he had developed a portion of the land which the Respondents had counterclaimed for. The court therefore held that since he had been in unchallenged possession of the developed portion of the land, it would be equitable to grant him possessory rights over that portion. Judgment was nonetheless entered for the Respondents for the whole parcel of land save the developed portion of the land Appellant occupied. It is against this judgment that the Appellant has launched the instant appeal. The grounds of appeal are listed as follows: i. The decision of the trial court granting defendants title to the vacant or undeveloped portion of the land is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial. ii. The decision that the trial court that plaintiff/appellant has no legal interest in the land in dispute is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial. iii. The trial court erred in holding that Land Certificate No. GA 12050 has not been cancelled or its cancellation ordered by the judgment in Suit No. BL 336/2008 iv. Further grounds of appeal to be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings. The Appellant’s Submissions The Appellant argued grounds (i) and (ii) together. These are: i. The decision of the trial court granting defendants title to the vacant or undeveloped portion of the land is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial. ii. The decision that the trial court that plaintiff/appellant has no legal interest in the land in dispute is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial. They referred to the cases of Djin v. Musa Baako (2007-2008) 1 SCGLR 680, F. K. A. Company Ltd & Anor v. Nii Ayikai Akrama II & Others (2016) 101 GMJ 187 and urged the Court to review the whole record of appeal to ascertain whether or not the judgment could be supported by the evidence on record. They argued that the finding made at page 26 of the Judgment (p. 496 of the ROA) failed to resolve the issues set for trial but rather restated the finding made by the Supreme Court in Nartey v. Mechanical Lloyd as follows: Consequently, on the assumption that the La Mantse was the true owner of Frafraha lands, he had intentionally for many years and certainly since 1969 led the general public by his deliberate omission or failure to assert his ownership to believe that the Agbawe Family of Frafraha were the owners of Frafraha lands. At any rate the stool had by its inaction permitted the general public including the appellant and even the government to believe that it had no objection to the conveyances made by the Agbawe family … On the other hand, the finding at p. 26 of the Judgment under attack was as follows: In the circumstances I hold that it is the respective families who have the power to grant the lands they have reduced into their possession and not the Quarter head. It was their contention that the trial court ought to have held that the Agbawe Family of Frafraha had sufficient interest in the land to grant same to the Appellant. They also contended that the court was bound by the decision in Nartey v. Mechanical Lloyd in resolving the issue of ownership of the land in dispute. They further submitted that the Respondents relied on the High Court Judgment in Suit No. L 568/97 titled Nii Sowah Otakaban II v. Samuel Adjei Ago delivered on 21st June, 2001 in which neither the Appellant nor his grantor were parties to found their claim. In that suit found at pp 260-271 of the ROA, the court had held at p. 264-265 of the ROA thus: Defendant admitted that it was the Agbawe Family that made the grant to Nathan Boateng; he also admitted the portion of land on which stands Mechanical Lloyd Workshop was granted by the Agbawe Family to one Philip Nartey. He admitted that it is the Agbawe Family which has the right to grant the land to Philip Nartey… As a result, the Appellant argued that this case should not operate so as to take away the rights of the Agbawe Family over the land as it formed part of the land adjudicated over in the Mechanical Lloyd case. It was their case that the case of Amishaddai Amanor v. Rebecca Korletey case tendered in evidence as Exhibit E (found at p. 234 of the ROA) put beyond doubt the ownership of the Agbawe Family of Frafraha over the land claimed by the Respondent. The Appellant in reference to Ground (iii) argued that the trial court erred in holding that Land Certificate No. GA 12050 had not been cancelled or its cancellation ordered by the Judgment in Suit No. BL 336/2008. It was also argued on Appellant’s behalf that the court in that suit made definitive pronouncements on Land Certificate No. GA 12050 that affected its validity and made the following pronouncement at p. 249 of the ROA: I also declare that all transactions in respect of Frafraha lands by the co- defendants on the basis of Land Title Certificate No. GA 12050 are null and void and of no legal effect especially as the co-defendants were ordered to return same by the Land Title Registry. No further grounds of appeal were filed. The Court therefore strikes out ground (v) which states further grounds of appeal to be filed upon receipt of the record of appeal. The Respondent did not file any submissions in the matter. The Court proceeded to determine the appeal, nonetheless. The following issues will be discussed together as they both are intertwined: i. The decision of the trial court granting defendants title to the vacant or undeveloped portion of the land is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial. ii. The decision that the trial court that plaintiff/appellant has no legal interest in the land in dispute is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial. An appeal as indicated by Rule 8(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules CI 19, is by way of rehearing. What this provision seeks to say is that the appellate court will deal with the matter as if it was hearing the matter at first instance. See the cases of Mamudu Wangara v. Gyato Wangara (1982-83) GLR 639 @ 655 CA; Ansu-Agyei v. Fimah (1993- 94) 1 GLR 299 at 305-306 SC and Praka v. Ketewa (1964) GLR 423 @ 426, SC. In rehearing the matter, the appellate court is required to examine the whole record of appeal, taking into account all the evidence, oral and documentary, to satisfy itself that the judgment is amply supported by the evidence on record, upon the preponderance of the probabilities. See Koglex Ltd (No. 2) v. Field (2000) SCGLR 175 @ 184; Tuakwa v. Bosom (2001-2002) SCGLR 61 @ 65 and Ackah v. Pergah Transport Ltd (2010) SCGLR 729. In this regard, the appellate court is enjoined to put itself in place of the trial court and evaluate the evidence. In so doing, it could make inferences from the facts on record and either affirm the judgment or interfere with the judgment where it deems fit. The court notes that while the Appellant has made a claim requesting for Declaration of Title to land situate and lying at New Frafraha, Accra bounded on the North East by Mantey Farms, measuring 180 ft more or less, on the South West by Lessors land measuring 200 ft more or less on the South East by Dodowa Road measuring 500 ft more or less, on the North West by Lessor’s land measuring 500 ft more or less and containing an approximate area of 2.25 acre more or less, (see pp 3-4 of the Record of Appeal{ROA}), the Respondent’s claim is for Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at the Amanfro Koo bounded on the North-East by Mantey Farms, measuring 180 ft more or less, on the South-West by Lessor’s land measuring 200 ft more or less on the South-East by Dodowa Road measuring 200 ft more or less, on the North-West by Lessors land measuring 500 ft more or less and containing an approximate area of 2.25 acres more or less.(See pp 25-26 and 58-59 of the ROA). The claim is for land in the exact same dimensions. While the Appellant refers to the said parcel of land as Frafraha lands, the Respondents refer to it as Amanfro Koo lands. Both parties have also sued and countersued for the reliefs of recovery of possession, damages for trespass and in the case of Appellant and 2nd and 3rd Respondents, an order of perpetual injunction restraining each other from further acts of trespass. Grounds (i) and (ii) are both referring to the fact that the judgment was against the weight of evidence. The authorities are to the effect that where an Appellant appeals against a judgment on the omnibus ground that the judgment is against the weight of evidence, the appellate court is bound to consider comprehensively, the entire evidence on record before coming to a conclusion on the matter. See the cases of Aryeh & Akakpo v. Ayaa Iddrisu (2010) SCGLR 891 and Djin v. Musah Baako (2007-2008) SCGLR 686 which are to the effect that in situations where an appellant complains that a judgment is against the weight of evidence, he is implying that there were certain pieces of evidence on the record which, if applied in his favour, could have changed the decision in his favour, or that certain pieces of evidence have been wrongly applied against him. It was therefore incumbent on such an appellant to clearly and properly demonstrate to the appellate court the lapses in the judgment being appealed against. So, what is the evidence on record? The Appellant stated in his Witness Statement found at p. 214-217 of the Record of Appeal (ROA) that he acquired the land in 1983 from the Agbawe Family of Frafraha. Exhibit A (found at p. 218 of the ROA) is an indenture made between Nii Okpoti Adjei Komey, Head and Lawful representative of the Agbawe Family of Frafraha Accra, with the consent and concurrence of the Principal Members of the said family and Samuel Adjin Sackey (the Appellant herein). It is dated 16th April 1983. It was his case that he presented his documents to the Lands Commission for processing and then travelled abroad and leaving matters in the hands of a relative to pursue the registration on his behalf. Not only did his relative fail to carry out this assignment but the originals of his documents were misplaced. The land was bare and he entered into occupation by erecting corner pillars and then a fence wall. He was in uninterrupted possession until he got news from his caretaker in 2009 that some trespassers had entered onto the land. It was on his return to Ghana that he discovered that some farm produce had been destroyed and construction had commenced on the land. It was then that he made a complaint to the police against the Respondents and it was at that point in time that he was made aware that the Adjei Kwashie, Adjei Kpabi and Sowah Klotia families had sold the land to the Respondents and that the latter had a Land Certificate in support of their claim to the land. He told the Court that upon investigation, he discovered that the said Land Certificate had been withdrawn by the Chief Registrar of Lands. It was his case that the ownership of Frafraha lands had been vested in the Agbawe Quarter and this had been the subject matter of judicial pronouncements including the Supreme Court in the case of Nartey v. Mechanical Lloyd. Furthermore, in Suit No. BL 336/2008 titled Amishaddai Amanor v. Rebecca Korletey & 4 others the 1st Respondent had given evidence on behalf of the Defendant in that case in which the court made findings that the land in question was Frafraha and not Amanfro Koo lands. As stated earlier, the land described in Exhibit A was described as belonging to the Agbawe Family. Exhibit B is a letter from the Land Title Registry addressed to Emmanuel Adjei Anum, Sowah Klotia Anum, Sowah Klotia Akpor, Samuel Adjei Okpoti, Sowah Kpabi, Andrews Tawiah Akuetteh and Klotia Okpoti Mensah of La Accra. (See p. 223 of the ROA). These persons mentioned are the registered allodial owners on Land Certificate GA 12050 (see p. 254 of the ROA). The contents of Exhibit B would be reproduced in full for its significance: Dear Sir, RECALL OF LAND CERTIFICATE NO. GA 12050 VOL. 59 FOLIO 31 We refer to previous correspondence on the above matter. (Letters dated 14/9/98 No. LTR/SDM/181 and 9/10/98 No. LTR/SDM/181. We have observed that, you have, despite persistent reminders, failed to surrender the Certificate in question. The Registry views your conduct with great concern and wish to advise that, you comply with the said order without further delay. I have been instructed to inform you that if within 7 days upon receipt of this letter the request to surrender has not been complied with, the Registry will take appropriate steps to cancel the said Certificate and expunge your name from the Register. Please be advised. Exhibit B was signed by a Senior Land Registrar for the Chief Registrar of Lands. On 29th January, 1999, Exhibit C (see p. 224 of the ROA) was issued. It was signed this time by the Chief Registrar of Lands and addressed to the same persons in Exhibit B. This letter states: Dear Sir, RECALL OF LAND CERTIFICATE NO. GA. 12050 VOL. 59 FOLIO 87 I refer to our letter No. LTR/SDM/181 dated 18th January, 1999 in relation to the above matter. I wish to inform you that the Land Certificate issued to you on the 26th of June 1998 GA. 12050 Vol. 59 Folio 37, having been found to have issued in error is hereby withdrawn and your names as proprietors of the said land are accordingly expunged from the Register. I wish to indicate that the allodial title to the land having been found to be vested in the Agbawe Quarter of La and for which reason you couldn’t have been granted the certificate conferring the same title to you. Any inconvenience caused is deeply regretted. Yours faithfully Sgd (C. B. ARYEE) CHIEF REGISTRAR OF LANDS The trial court in its judgment held that the Appellant could not in his testimony, tell the exact size of his land and that this put his testimony in doubt. Contrary to this assertion made by the trial court, the Appellant had claimed in his writ of summons at paragraph 13 (a) and found at p. 4 of the ROA the following: a) Declaration of Title to land situate and lying at New Frafraha, Accra bounded on the North East by Mantey Farms, measuring 180 ft more or less, on the South West by Lessors land measuring 200 ft more or less on the South East by Dodowa Road measuring 500 ft more or less, on the North West by Lessor’s land measuring 500 ft more or less and containing an approximate area of 2.25 acre more or less. Moreover, at paragraph 3 of his witness statement (see p. 214 of the ROA) he had stated: The land is 2.25 acres in size and shares boundaries with Mantey Farms on the north-east measuring 180 ft more or less, on the south-west by my lessor’s land measuring 200 ft more or less on the south-east by Dodowa Road measuring 500 ft and on the north-east by Lessor’s land measuring 500 ft. It is in our view that contrary to the trial court’s findings; the Appellant has been able to establish positively the identity of the land for which he had instituted suit. Not only did he plead the dimensions of his land, but described it adequately both in the endorsement on the writ at p 2 of the ROA and in paragraph 3 of his statement of claim at p. 3 of the ROA as well as in paragraph 3 of his witness statement. He had therefore passed the litmus test set out in Nyiklorkpo v. Agbedetor (1987-88) 1 GLR 165 and Bedu v. Agbi (1972) 2 GLR 238 The 2nd Respondent in his evidence found at p. 251-271 of the ROA is of relevance here. He described himself as a principal member of the Adjei Kwashie Family of Kplen We Agbawe Quarter of La and a signatory to the family land documents. He stated at paragraphs 3-16 as ff: 3. The Adjei Kwashie, Adjei Kpabi and Sowah Klotia families of La are part of the Kplen We, Agbawe Quarter, La. 4. The Adjei Kwashie, Adjei Kpabi and Sowah Klotia families are the owners of a parcel of land known as Amanfro Koo near Oyarifa-Accra. 5. The said land is registered at the Land Title Registry with certificate number GA 12050 (a copy of the said land certificate is annexed hereto as Exhibit “AK1”). 6. After registering the land the said families caused to be published in the Daily Graphic newspaper that all persons who had an interest in our land must contact us for regularization of their interest (attached hereto is a copy of the publication and marked as Exhibit “AK2”). 7. After the period set for the regularization, the families entered our land and all vacant lands were surveyed and grants made to some persons. 8. It was when our grantees took possession of their land and started work that plaintiff came to claim a portion of our family land. 9. Plaintiff reported us to the police at Frafraha, Adenta and to the Property Fraud Unit at Police Headquarters. 10. Whilst the police investigation was ongoing, the Plaintiff served us with a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim and an Application for Injunction. 11. Before plaintiff reported the case to the police, we met his caretaker who liaised between us and him. 12. In our discussions with the said caretaker, we told him we were prepared to regularize Plaintiff’s documents for the portions of our land he had developed. 13. Again, our families had also sold some vacant lands for which the persons had processed their documents and had land title certificate. 14. Our families’ title certificate was issued after in Nii Sowah Okatapam II (Suing per his Lawful Attorney J. S. Laryes v. Samuel Adjei Ago … Suit No. L 568/97 (copy of the said judgment is hereby attached and marked as Exhibit “AK 3”) 15. Amanfro Koo lands are separate and distinct from Frafraha Lands and the caretakers of Frafraha lands have never had jurisdiction over our lands. 16. The Head of the Agbawe Family cannot therefore sell any portion of our land. The Land Certificate referred to in the Respondent’s evidence, i.e. GA 12050 is the same one under reference in the letters issued by the Land Title Registry. In the suit titled Nii Sowah Okataban v. Samuel Adjei Ago found at pp 260-271 of the ROA, the land had been described in p. 263 of the ROA as: The land is situate at Accra; it lies between the road to Dodowa and the road to Aburi, i.e. Just after the barrier. On the Accra-Aburi Road the land lies right, on the Accra-Dodowa Road, the land lies left. From Accra to Aburi the land is situate at Mile 13; it stretched to the North up to where we share a boundary with the Owusu We. The land is called Amanfro Koo. It is not on Adentan land. On Accra-Dodowa Road we share boundary with Kplen We on the right; on the North we have the Kplen Koo, north-eastern side is with Owusu We. From the Barrier towards Accra the lands belong to the Adentan people … The barrier is the boundary between or land and the land belonging to the Adentan people. The court had continued at p. 264-265 of the ROA thus: Defendant admitted that it was the Agbawe Family that made the grant to Nathan Boateng; he also admitted the portion of land on which stands Mechanical Lloyd Workshop was granted by the Agbawe Family to one Philip Nartey. He admitted that it is the Agbawe Family which has the right to grant the land to Philip Nartey however defendant added that he is also part of the Agbawe Family. As a result of this pronouncement, the Appellant had argued that this case should not operate so as to take away the rights of the Agbawe Family over the land as it formed part of the land adjudicated over in the Mechanical Lloyd case. It was also their case that the judgment in the Amishaddai Amanor v. Rebecca Korletey case tendered in evidence as Exhibit E (found at p. 234 of the ROA) put beyond doubt the ownership of the Agbawe Family of Frafraha over the land claimed by the Respondent. In that case, the Plaintiff (Amishaddai) had claimed the following reliefs: a) A declaration of title to all that three (3) plots of land adjoining each other and situate at Mile 13, Frafraha in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana, and which plot of lands are particularly described in the schedule below. b) An order for recovery of possession. c) Damages for trespass d) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, their assigns, workmen agent or any other person(s) claiming through them from or in any means dealing with the said pieces or parcels of land. e) An order compelling the Land Title Registry, Land Valuation Board, Land Commission’s Secretariat and the Survey Department to CANCEL and EXPUNGE from their RECORDS Land Title Certificate No. GA 12050, Land Valuation Board Registration No. LVB 11712B/94. f) A further order a declaration that all transactions in respect of Frafraha lands on the basis of Land Title Certificate No. GA 12050 are void and are of no legal effect. The Court at p. 242 of the ROA did not accept that the land described in the 2nd Co- Defendant’s evidence was at Amanfro Koo. The Court made reference to Nartey v. Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Plant Ltd (1987-88) 2 GLR 314 and held that the land in dispute and the Mechanical Lloyd company land were at Frafraha and not Amanfro Koo. The Court held further, that the Co-Defendants could not make a perfect grant of the disputed land as the allodial title was in the La Stool and the usufruct title was in the Agbawe Quarter. The Court went further to declare that all transactions in respect of Frafraha lands by the Co-Defendants on the basis of Land Title Certificate No. GA 12050 were null and void and of no legal effect especially as the Co-Defendants were ordered to return same by the Land Title Registry. The court made findings which are at p. 242-243 of the ROA: In Exhibit “C” the land was said to be at Frafraha. In Nartey v. Mechanical Lloyds case, the land was said to be at Frafraha. The 2nd Co-Defendant in his evidence in chief said the land in question is Amanfro-Koo land and not Frafraha land. Whilst he was under cross-examination, said the Mechanical Lloyd Company falls within Amanfro Koo. This company’s land was the subject matter of dispute in the Mechanical Lloyd case which ended in the Supreme Court. … it was agreed that the land is at Frafraha Also, in evidence as Exhibit D and found at p. 225 of the ROA is yet another judgment of the High Court in Suit No. L. 320/98 titled Komey Mensah Larsey and others v. Daniel Anum Adjei & anor (delivered on 22nd July, 2005). The Plaintiffs therein had instituted suit claiming the following reliefs: 1. A declaration that Frafraha village is a rural village of La Agbawe Quarter/Clan. 2. A declaration that only the Agbawe Quarter/Clan has authority to appoint or create a village head at Frafraha. 3. A declaration that only the Agbawe Quarter/Clan can alienate land at Frafraha village. 4. Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, personal representatives etc. from calling themselves, purporting to call themselves headmen performing rites to that effect, alienating lands or interfering with the authority or control by plaintiffs or land at Frafraha village, Accra The court found from the evidence that the Plaintiffs were entitled to their claims and entered judgment for them accordingly. All the judgments received in evidence in respect of this trial have referred to the seminal decision in Nartey v. Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Plant (1987-88) 2 GLR 314. At page 343 the Court speaking through Adade JSC stated that the La Stool had no land in Frafraha; the land belonged to the Agbawe family. The land in question was described at p. 362 of the judgment as a parcel of land lying at Frafraha along the Accra-Aburi Road. Exhibit A tendered by the Appellant (See p. 218) of the ROA is an indenture dated 16th April 1983 describes the land as being ALL THAT PIECE OF LAND situate lying and being at NEW FRAFRAHA-ACCRA. Those lands have been adjudged in the Mechanical Lloyd case to belong to the Agbawe family and to be situate at Frafraha. Exhibit A was executed by the Head and Lawful Representative of the Agbawe Family of Frafraha, Accra with the consent and concurrence of the Principal Members of family. From the evidence therefore, the land in question was at Frafraha and belonged to the Agbawe Family. The Appellant was given his land in 1983 and was in effective possession. In cross-examination of the 1st Respondent the following was elicited: (see p. 411-412 of the ROA) Q: At the time you and the other Defendants attempted to take control over Plaintiff’s land he had structures constructed on the land? A: That is so. He had built housed on some of the lands. We told him that the land on which he had built he should come for us to prepare documents for him and that he should stop developing the vacant portion. He sent us to Frafraha Police Station, we produced our documents but he could not produce any document. Q: I am suggesting to you that you forcibly went on to the land and damaged part of the fence wall. A: That is not true. We did not demolish any fence wall. Q: And that you have since been attempting to take over the land even while this case is pending? A: It is not true. Those we have prepared documents for who have title over their land they went onto their land to develop their land and we told them they should stop developing the land because the matter is pending before the court, they even took us to the Central Police Station. Q: As at 1983 you did not have a land certificate over the land in issue. A: That is true. My senior uncle (Adjei Tawiah) sued Kommey Okpoti and Justice Nii Armah Ollenu suggested that the matter should be settled out of court at the said settlement, Kommey Okpoti stated that “his hoe for weeding has misled him” Q: Have you heard of the name Mechanical Lloyd Company A: Yes, My Lord. Q: Mechanical Lloyd Company is situated on the land which you are describing as Amanfro Koo. A: That is true. Q: Do you know that the Supreme Court several years ago declared that Mechanical Lloyd is on Frafraha land? A: It is not true. At that time Anyetei Kwakranya the then Chief of La pleaded with my uncle (Adjei Tawiah) that in future it (Mechanical Lloyd) will benefit all Ghanaians and Las in particular. And that Anyetei Kwakwranya had no authority to give out lands at that area because it is not a stool land. The evidence is to the effect that the Respondents have laid claim to the Appellant’s land which has been described as Frafraha lands. The land being claimed falls within lands which were the subject matter of the Mechanical Lloyd case. These lands were held to be Frafraha lands by the Supreme Court. This decision is binding on us and also on the trial court. We therefore make a finding of fact that the Okataban case could not take away the rights of the Agbawe Family of Frafraha over the land in dispute. As the land in dispute on the strength of the Mechanical Lloyd case is vested in the Agbawe family of Frafraha, the Respondents cannot succeed on their counterclaim for the following reliefs: a) Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land lying and being at Adenta and forming part of the vast parcel of land commonly known as Adentan land and bounded on the North by a proposed road measuring there 200 ft more or less on the North-East by Plaintiff’s family land measuring there 160 ft more or less on the North again by Plaintiff’s family land measuring 90 ft more or less on the South by a proposed road measuring there 70 ft and 90 ft more or less and on the West by the Accra-Aburi Road measuring there 245 ft more or less and covering an area of 1.03 acres. Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land known as Amanfro Koo lands. b) Recovery of Possession. c) Damages for Trespass. d) An order of perpetual injunction restraining Appellant by himself or his workmen, assigns or anybody claiming through him form further acts of trespass on the Amanfro Koo lands. Consequently, we find that the trial judge erred in holding that the land in dispute was known as Amanfro Koo and that the Adjei Quarshie, Adjei Kpabi and Sowah Klotia families had the right to alienate same. Put in legal parlance, “nemo dat quod non habet”, he who has nothing cannot give anything. Indeed, as Denning LJ put it succinctly in MacFoy v. UAC (1962) AC 152 “You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.” Therefore, the Respondent’s contentions that they were owners of land situate at Amanfro Koo have collapsed under the weight of the Mechanical Lloyd Judgment which has declared unrepentantly, that the land on which the Mechanical Lloyd factory was situate was at Frafraha and the true owner of the property was the Agbawe Family of Frafraha. We hereby reverse the trial court’s judgment as being against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and find that the Appellant had a legal interest in the land in dispute. The trial court found at p. 500 of the ROA as follows: The Plaintiff in his evidence in chief stated that the land was bare at the time he acquired it. He had corner pillars erected at the boundaries and constructed a fence wall along a substantial part of the boundary. He also built six (6) stores on part of the land and put several caretakers on the land. …. He further testified that he was in peaceful and unchallenged possession of the land for several years until the year 2009 when he was informed by the caretaker of the trespass by Defendants with accompanying threats. Plaintiff therefore instituted this action in 2010. The evidence of long possession by the Plaintiff was not challenged by the Defendants. They rather admitted that Plaintiff was in possession of the developed portions of the land when they went onto the land and attempted to take possession of what they called vacant portions of the land. It is trite law that possession is good against the whole world except the owner. In the Mechanical Lloyd case referred to supra, the Court speaking through Amua- Sekyi JSC had this to say at p. 365: There seems to be a misunderstanding of the cases which decide that a party in possession of land is entitled to the protection of the courts against all those who cannot prove a better title. The cases show that it is not possession for a day or two, a week, a month or, even a year which suffices to bring the rule into operation. It is rather long, peaceful, undisturbed possession over a considerable period of time, long and peaceful enough to raise a presumption that the occupation of the land must have a lawful origin. Having found that the Appellant had been in unchallenged possession of the developed portion of the land, the trial court should have declared title not only to that portion of the land the Appellant had occupied but to the whole portion of the land as he had been in undisturbed possession of the whole of the land described in his writ of summons as it formed a composite whole. It was therefore an anomaly to grant him only possessory rights over the developed portion. We therefore reverse that part of the judgment which affected the vacant or undeveloped portion of the land and enter judgment in favour of the Appellant for the whole of the land as prayed for in his writ of summons and statement of claim. We now turn our attention to ground (iii) of the Grounds of Appeal which is: (iii) The trial court erred in holding that Land Certificate No. GA 12050 has not been cancelled or its cancellation ordered by the Judgment in Suit No. BL 336/2008 The Judgment delivered in Suit No. BL336/2008 on 11th March, 2011 is found at p. 234- 250 of the ROA. In respect to the Land Certificate the Court stated in paragraph (d) found on p. 249 as follows: I also declare that all transactions in respect of Frafraha lands by the Co- Defendants, on the basis of Land Title Certificate No. GA 12050 are null and void and of no legal effect especially as the Co-Defendants were ordered to return same by the Land Title Registry. By this pronouncement, the Court in Suit No. BL336/2008 only made a declaratory pronouncement. It did not go a step further to actually cancel the Land Title Certificate No. GA 12050. However, there is evidence on record i.e. Exhibits B and C that communication in respect of Land Title Certificate No. GA 12050 had been addressed to the Respondents’ grantors. Exhibit B was captioned RECALL OF LAND CERTIFICATE NO. GA 12050 VOL. 59 FOLIO 31 and was dated 18th January, 1999. The Reference Number of this letter is LTR/SDM/181. It made reference to letters dated 14th September, 1998 (No. LTR/SDM/181) and 9th October, 1998 (No. LTR/SDM/181) and stated that despite persistent reminders, the named persons on Land Certificate No. GA 12050 had failed to comply with the directive to surrender the said Land Certificate. It further stated that failure to respond within 7 days upon receipt of the letter, the Registry would take appropriate steps to cancel the said Certificate and to expunge their names from the Register. Exhibit C is dated 29th January, 1999. It is not on a letter head. It is captioned RECALL OF LAND CERTIFICATE No. GA 12050 and makes reference to letter No. LTR/SDM/181 dated 18th January 1999. This can only be Exhibit B. Although it was not on a letter head, it had made reference to Exhibit B. It informed the named persons that Land Certificate No. GA 12050 had been issued in error and that it had hereby been withdrawn and that their names had accordingly been expunged from the Register. The reason for the withdrawal and expunging from the Register was: I wish to indicate that the allodial title to the land having been found to be vested in the Agbawe Quarter of La, and for which reason you couldn’t have been granted the certificate conferring the same title to you. From the foregoing, we hereby make an order expunging Land Certificate No. GA 12050 from the records of the Land Title Registry as having been issued irregularly and/or unlawfully. CONCLUSION The Appeal is allowed and Judgment is entered in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent. Consequently, the Appellant is entitled to the following reliefs: a) A declaration of title to land situate and lying at New Frafraha, Accra bounded on the North East by Mantey Farms, measuring 180 ft more or less, on the South West by Lessors land measuring 200 ft more or less on the South East by Dodowa Road measuring 500 ft more or less, on the North West by Lessor’s land measuring 500 ft more or less and containing an approximate area of 2.25 acre more or less. b) Recovery of Possession of said parcel of land. c) Since the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have been onto the land and caused damage to the Appellant’s crops, we would award the sum of GH¢30,000.00 against the 2nd and 3rd Respondent and in favour of the Appellant as General Damages for trespass d) An order expunging Land Title Certificate No. GA 12050 from the records of the Land Title Registry as it having been issued irregularly and/or unlawfully. e) Perpetual Injunction restraining the Respondents and /or their agents, servants, workmen, privies, assigns or whomsoever from howsoever entering upon the property and or interfering with Plaintiff’s rights to enjoyment of the said property. f) Costs of GH¢10,000.00 is awarded against the Respondents and in favour of the Appellant. SGD JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS) (JUSTICE OF APPEAL) SGD SENYO DZAMEFE (JUSTICE OF APPEAL) SGD P. BRIGHT MENSAH (JUSTICE OF APPEAL) I AGREE I ALSO AGREE COUNSEL Odartey Lamptey for the plaintiff/appellant 29