The 3rd defendants however admitted demolishing the plaintiffs structures on the disputed land but gave the basis for their action from the statutory powers conferred on District Assemblies by the Local Government Act, 1993 [Act 462] to remove all unauthorised structures constructed without permits.
The Co-defendant who was joined to the suit by the court suo motu filed its defence and stated that both plaintiffs and 1st and 2nd defendants are trespassers because the grantors of the 1st and 2nd defendants had their interest extinct by the certificate of Title in 1929 which vested the land on behalf of the state. 
The Co-defendant further counterclaimed against the other parties for:
“(i)	Declaration that state is the owner of all that tract of land including the subject matter of dispute by virtue of a Certificate of Title dated 1929.
(ii)	Recovery of possession.
(iii)	Cancellation of Land Title Certificate No. GA 15945.
(iv)	Damages for trespass”.
At the close of pleadings nine specific issues were set down for the resolution of the matter. The important issue that would largely determine the matter is the one who owns the disputed land. All the parties proffered evidence at the trial to prove their respective claims.
The plaintiffs in their evidence chief stated, inter alia, that they had been on the disputed land for years and constructed a car washing bay on the land on the authority of the building permits granted to them by the 3rd defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that after the acquisition of the land from Gbese Stool, they conducted a search which revealed that the disputed land was affected by an Executive Instrument which vested the land in the State in 1929. T