LAWRENCE L. MENSAH JA:
This is an appeal launched by the Defendants/Appellants who will be referred to as the Defendants against the judgment of the High Court (Land Division) Accra dated 30th January, 2018 in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents who will be referred to as the Plaintiffs. The subject matter of this appeal is in respect of a piece or parcel of land situate at Baatsona and or Okpoigonno in the Greater Region as each of the parties respectively refer to same.
Facts
To appreciate the conflict engendered by this appeal it is necessary to unravel the facts of the case to put each of the parties appeal in its proper perspective. It is also necessary to state that the 1st and 2nd Defendants have a joint defence, while the 3rd and 4th also have a common defence with the 5th Defendant Lands Commission not showing in the case at all as a contestant, except a banal statement of defence they filed at the court below.
Case of the plaintiffs:
It is the case of the plaintiffs as amended, that in or about the 16th of November 1975, 2nd plaintiff together with one Samuel O. Laryea (Deceased) whose customary successor is the 1st plaintiff, acquired the disputed land from Nii Klu Tsuru Nmashie, the Mankralo of Teshie. An indenture Exh C was executed to evidence the transaction. The disputed land which covered an area of 11.48 acres was bounded by stool lands and lying North East of Teshie.
It is the further case of the plaintiffs that upon acquiring the said parcel of land from the then Makralo of Teshie aforesaid, the plaintiffs immediately went into possession by planting economic trees on the said land. They made grants to various persons after having the land registered at the 5th Defendant Lands Commission with Registration Number 2428/78 at the Deeds Registry. Plaintiffs said it had come to their attention that the 1st and 2nd Defendants had fraudulently made various grants to other persons, including the mother of the 3rd and 4th Defendants who encroached on the disputed land. The plaintiffs particularized the alleged fraud of the Defendants because 1st and 2nd Defendants have acquired a provisional certificate from the 5th Defendant though the 1st and 2nd Defendants knew that they had no interest in the disputed land.
The plaintiffs said after the 3rd and 4th Defendants had trespassed onto the land and started a fence wall, the plaintiffs warned them to keep off the land. When the 3rd and 4th Defendants refused to abate their trespass the plain