DOROTHY EBOE ARTHUR & 1OR v. INTERNATIONAL CENTRAL GOSPEL CHURCH
2025
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE BARBARA TETTEH CHARWAY
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2025
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The dispute concerns competing claims to a Weija, Accra parcel between the estate of Ahia Eboe Arthur and a church represented by Pastor Eric Totimeh. The plaintiffs relied on a 1978 lease from Nii Antonyame II of the Weija Stool, registration, and boundary pillars to claim title and possession over an area described as approximately 0.24 acre. The defendant acquired the land in 2008 from Samuel Sackey Quarcoopome and executed a lease in 2012 through Nii Boafo Danyina Nse I of the Weija Stool, then constructed temporary structures. The High Court ordered a Lands Commission composite plan, which showed the plaintiffs’ site plan overlapped only partially with the land in dispute and otherwise matched the defendant’s plan. Applying Ghanaian evidence and land law principles, the court held the defendant entitled to the non-overlapping section, found the stool’s 2012 sale invalid only to the overlapped portion, confirmed that a non-gazetted chief may alienate land, granted a perpetual injunction against interference, and left the parties to address the overlapped area.
1] This is a dispute over a piece of land located at Weija in Accra. Both parties rely on documentary evidence and acts of possession in proof of their respective claims.
2] It is a basic principle of land litigation that in an action for declaration of title to land, recovery of possession and injunction, as in the instant case, the plaintiff must establish by positive evidence, the identity and limits of the land he claims. See cases such as Anane v Donkor [1965] GLR 188, Nortey (No.2) v West African Institute of Journalism [2013- 2014] SCGLR 703 and Agyei Osae and Ors v Adjeifio and Ors [2007- 2008] SCGLR 499.
3] In the instant case, the defendant filed a counterclaim and therefore the defendant also had a duty to adduce positive evidence to establish the identity and limits of the land it claimed. See: Jass Co. Ltd v Appau [2009] SCGLR 269 and Aryeh Akakpo v Ayaa Iddrisu (2010) SCGLR 891.
4] Generally, the standard of proof in civil cases is proof on a balance of probabilities except in instances where proof of a crime is in issue. See: section 13(1) Evidence Act, 1975 N.R.C.D. 323. In civil cases, the party who makes an allegation that is material to his or her claim has the burden to prove the allegation. He or she does so by adducing sufficient and credible evidence to convince the court that the said allegation is more probable than not. This principle was emphasized in the case of Okudzeto Ablakwa (No.2) vs Attorney-
General & Another (2012) 2 SCGLR at 87, where the Supreme Court stated as follows;
“ If a person goes to court to make an allegation, the onus is on him to lead evidence to prove the allegation, unless the allegation is admitted. If he fails to do that, the ruling on that allegation will go against him. Stated more explicitly, a party cannot win a case in court if the case is based on an allegation which he fails to prove or establish…”
Also, in the case of Ackah v. Pergah Transport Ltd & Ors (2010) SCGLR 728 at 736 the Supreme Court per Adinyira JSC, explained what is expected of a party who bears the burden of proof on an issue in the following terms;
“it is a basic principle of the law on evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail. The method of producing evidence is varied and it includes the testimonies of the party, material witnesses, admissible hearsay, documentary and thin