Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves a land title dispute between Joshua Atule Amiyuure (Plaintiff) and three Defendants (Daniel Nyaba, Robert Akanlutey, Francisca Avade Adita). In 2015, the Plaintiff purchased an unnumbered plot of land from the 2nd Defendant via the 1st Defendant, with a Deed of Assignment prepared but not executed. The 3rd Defendant later claimed ownership in 2017, leading to police intervention. The court found that the land originally belonged to the late Francis Wallace Akanlutey, whose son (2nd Defendant) authorized the 2015 sale to the Plaintiff. The Defendants later sold the same plot to the 3rd Defendant in 2016, which the court deemed invalid under the 'nemo dat quod non habet' principle (a seller cannot transfer title they do not possess). The 3rd Defendant failed to prove her counterclaim due to lack of documentary evidence, and the 2016 sale was declared null and void.
Issues
- Whether or not the 3rd Defendant is entitled to her counterclaim for recovery of possession, damages for trespass, and removal of plaintiff's structures, considering her failure to provide sufficient evidence (as per sections 18.10-18.32).
- Whether or not the land sold to the Plaintiff in 2015 is the same as the one sold to the 3rd Defendant in 2016, as per paragraph 12.3 of the document.
- Whether or not the Plaintiff or 3rd Defendant is the rightful owner of the land in dispute, based on evidence of prior sale and legal principles like nemo dat quod non habet (as discussed in sections 18.5-18.9).
Holdings
- The 2nd defendant was ordered to execute a proper Lease or Deed of Assignment in favor of the plaintiff within three months of the judgment.
- A perpetual injunction was granted to restrain the defendants, their agents, and claimants from interfering with the plaintiff's ownership and enjoyment of the land.
- Costs of GH¢3,000.00 (GH¢1,000.00 each) were awarded against the defendants in favor of the plaintiff.
- The court declared the plaintiff the owner of the unnumbered plot of land in Sokobisi Residential Area, Bolgatanga, based on the 2015 sale. The 2016 sale to the 3rd defendant was found invalid as the 2nd defendant had already divested title in 2015, invoking the 'nemo dat quod non habet' principle.
- The 3rd defendant's counterclaim was dismissed as she failed to prove her claim by preponderance of probabilities, lacking sufficient evidence and documents to establish ownership.
Remedies
- The court ordered the 2nd defendant (Robert Akanlutey) to execute a proper Lease or Deed of Assignment in favor of the plaintiff within three months from the date of the judgment.
- The court declared the plaintiff the owner of all that piece of land known as an unnumbered plot containing an approximate area of 0.27 acre situate at Sokobisi Residential Area in Bolgatanga, as described in the Writ of Summons.
- The court issued a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, assigns, privies, and all those claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff's quiet enjoyment and use of the said land.
- The court awarded costs of GH¢1,000 each against the defendants in favor of the plaintiff, totaling GH¢3,000.
Monetary Damages
3000.00
Legal Principles
- The court applied the 'preponderance of the probabilities' standard, which requires the existence of a fact to be more likely than not. The Plaintiff's evidence, including the 2015 site plan and witness accounts, satisfied this threshold. The 3rd Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed because her testimony and claims of documents were not supported by tangible evidence presented in court. The court referenced Section 12(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), and the case of Adwubeng v. Domfeh [1996-97] S.C.G.L.R. 660 to clarify that bare assertions without corroboration fail to meet this standard.
- The court applied the principle of 'nemo dat quod non habet,' which holds that a person cannot convey a better title to property than they themselves possess. In this case, the 2nd Defendant (Robert Akanlutey) sold the land to the Plaintiff in 2015 and later attempted to sell the same land to the 3rd Defendant in 2016. The court found that the 2nd Defendant had no valid title to sell the land again after the 2015 transaction, rendering the 2016 sale null and void. This principle was reinforced by references to cases such as Bishopsgate Motor Finance Corporation Ltd. V. Transport Brakes Ltd. [1949] 1 KB 322 and Seidu Mohammed V. Saanbaye Kangberee [2012] 2 SCGLR 1182.
- The court emphasized that the Plaintiff bore the burden of proving their claim to the land. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated ownership through witness testimony and a site plan dated 8th September 2015. In contrast, the 3rd Defendant failed to substantiate her counterclaim, as her evidence (e.g., alleged receipt and deed) was not presented in court. The court cited the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), particularly Sections 10, 11, and 12, to underscore that uncorroborated assertions do not meet the legal burden of proof. This aligns with case law such as Air Namibia (Pty) Ltd. V. Micon Travel & Tour & 2 Ors, [2015] 91 G.M.J.
Precedent Name
- Seidu Mohammed V. Saanbaye Kangberee
- Adwubeng v. Domfeh
- Nortey (No.2) V. African Institute of Journalism and Communication & Others (No.2)
- Klutse v. Nelson
- Bishopsgate Motor Finance Corporation Ltd. V. Transport Brakes Ltd.
Cited Statute
Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323)
Judge Name
Mawukoenya Nutekpor
Passage Text
- Plaintiff action succeeds... and he is declared the owner of all that piece of land... The 3rd Defendant failed to prove her counterclaim to the satisfaction of this court... accordingly, 3rd Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
- The 3rd Defendant claims she has documents covering the land in dispute but none of those documents was tendered in evidence in support of her claim... having examined the evidence of the 3rd Defendant on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the 3rd Defendant has failed to establish the existence of facts contained in her counterclaim by the preponderance of the probabilities.
- One of the maxims of equity is that where the equities are equal the first in time prevails. So, the one who bought the land first should be declared the owner. Thus, having found that the Plaintiff and 3rd Defendant are claiming the same land, the Nemo dat principle will be applied.