Adeyema. The said Aliyu Akambi Adeyemo declared to a Statutory Declaration dated 26th September, 2001 as the family representative of the Adeyemo family of Accra. The Statutory Declaration was tendered as exhibit ‘B’. he declared in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Statutory Declaration as follows:
“5.	That the entire premises (H/No. C 405/9) has with my consent and that of the entire Adeyemo family been sold to ALI MOHAMMED ALI TOURE, P. O. Box 5834, Accra Ghana.
6.	That I make this solemn declaration to serve as a document transferring the said property outrightly to MOHAMMED ALI TOURE and that having transferred to him, the house henceforth becomes this bona fide property without a challenge from any quarters”.
Exhibit ‘C’, being the payment receipt was also issued by the same Adeyemo Aliyu.
The next issue to resolve is who is this Adeyemo Aliyu alias Aliyu Akambi Adeyemo? The plaintiffs in their pleadings and their evidence in Court of sought to prove that Aliyu Akambi Adeyemo was a child of Alhaji Issifu Adeyemo. Under cross examination, the defendants challenged the plaintiffs that the said Aliyu Akambi Adeyemo was not a biological son of the late Alhaji Issifu Adeyemo and they failed to prove that he was his son. The defendants on the other-hand were able to prove that Aliyu Akambi Adeyema was a step child of their grandfather, the late Alhaji Issifu Adeyemo. I am satisfied based on the evidence adduced by the parties that the plaintiffs who claimed that their grantor bought the house from proper person; that is, Aliyu Akambi Adeyemo, failed to prove by preponderance of the probabilities that Aliyu Akambi Adeyemo had interest in the property by virtue of being a son of the original lessee. They also failed to prove that he is an administrator of the lessee and therefore had capacity to alienate the disputed property. The plaintiffs who had the burden of persuasion with respect to the capacity of their grantor failed to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of this court that their grantor was a child of the deceased, and, furthermore, he had capacity to alienate the property. The plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements imposed on them by Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (N.R.C.D 323) and this court is of the considered opinion that their grantor lacked capacity to alienate the disputed property and any purported alienation  by him is void.
The persons with capacity to alienate the disputed property are the administrators of the estate of the late Alhaji Yusif Adeyemo being Philomena Porsoo and Abdul Raimi Yusif. I am satisfied that at the time the plaintiffs grantor, purported to have bought the disputed property, the administrators of Alhaji Yusif Adeyemoh were alive and they were the only competent persons to alienate the property.
The conveyance executed in favour of the plaintiffs’ grantor by Aliyu Adeyemo is void for lack of capacity to deal with the property. The conveyance which is void was not registered in accordance with Section 24 (1) of the Land Registry Act, Act 122 and would not have had a legal efficacy until it was registered if it had been executed by a person with capacity to deal with it.
Exhibit ‘B’, the Statutory Declaration declared to by Aliyu Akambi Adeyema is not an instrument effecting land and does not need to be registered under both the Land Registry Act and the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 152). It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Agbosu and others V. Kotey and other [2005 – 2006] GLR 685 that Statutory Declaration does not create proprietary rights in its holder even though it may be used as an evidence to prove title. Exhibit ‘B’ equally does not have any legal effect as the person who made the declaration contained in the statutory declaration therein lacked capacity to make it. The Plaintiffs grantor is a fraudster as he made an alienation which he knew he lacked capacity to do. The plaintiff action fails 