J U D G M E N T This is not a Financial and Economic Crimes case. I exercise jurisdiction in this case pursuant to an Order of Transfer dated 23rd February 2015.  
The plaintiff claim against the defendant the following reliefs: 
1. Declaration to title to the 0.11 Acre of Land situated at Agbogbloshie.  2. Recovery of possession to the said land from the Defendant.  3. An order to perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents or servants from continuing with the development of the said land including acts that amount to an assertion of title to the land.  4. An order restraining the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff’s right to quiet possession of the land. 
The plaintiff is a businessman and domiciled in the United Kingdom whilst the defendant is a businessman resident in Accra. 
The plaintiff’s case is that the land in dispute was acquired by his late father Francis Heletsi Amevor from the late R.M. Johnson in the early 1960’s. He stated that his father erected structures on the land which were occupied by his siblings Anani Amevor and Azametsi amevor who undertook commercial activities on the land. He added that his father established a beer bar and a printing press on the land until his 
2  
demise in 1995. He said his late father bequeathed the said parcel of land to him. He stated that his late father commenced the process of registering the land in his name but could not complete it before he died in 1995. According to the plaintiff he has completed the registration process and his name has been entered at the Lands Commission as the owner of the owner. He contended that sometime in 2010 the defendant went onto the land without his authority and demolished the printing press which was the only structure left on the land at the time and is putting up a structure for commercial purposes on the land. He said when the defendant’s acts came to his attention he asked his attorney to question the defendant about his conduct but he failed to heed to wise counselling so the matter was reported to the police whose investigation established that the land was acquired by the plaintiff’s late father so they advised him to take the matter to court. 
The defendant’s case is that the late R. M. Johnson did not own the land in dispute since it has been part of the family property of the late Gilbert Johnson family from time immemorial. He asserted that the said land has never been regarded as part of the estate of the late Francis Heletsi Amevor. He contended that the Gilbert Johnson family granted him a lease in 1998 and ejected those previously in possession to facilitate vacant possession of the land by the defendant. He stated that it was one David Agbeko Amevor who interfered with his construction on the land and when a report was made to the police they advised that they go to court. The defendant contended that his title to the land in dispute has already been decided in the civil appeal entitled George Kofi Gyima vrs. J. K. Abrokwa, Civil Appeal No. H1/64/09 in which a judgment delivered on 5th November 2009, declared that the defendant holds a valid grant of a lease of the land in dispute from the Gilbert Johnson family. He stated that the plaintiff and his assigns are aware of the said suit therefore the plaintiff is estopped by the said judgment from disputing the defendant’s interest in the land in dispute. He maintained that his possession and development of the land in dispute is lawful. 
The issues for trial are these: 
a. Whether or not the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the land in dispute on the basis that he was gifted the said land by his late father.  b. Whether or not the Defendant is in adverse possession of the disputed property.  
3  
c. Whether or not the Defendant’s grantors had the authority of the principal members of Johnson family to sell the disputed property to the Defendant.  d. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his claims.  e. Any further or other issues arising from the pleadings.  
The defendant added the following as additional issues: 
1. Whether or not the plaintiff is estopped by the judgment in the suit entitled George Kofi Gyima versus J. K. Abrokwa, Civil Appeal No. H1/ 64/09 delivered on 5th November, 2009 from litigating the title of the defendant to the land in dispute. 2. Additional issue No. 1 be set down for legal argument.   
The application for directions was taken and granted on the 24/11/2011 for the issues   filed on the 18/11/11 and additional issues filed on the 22/11/11 set down for trial by the court.  It must be stated that on record there is a notice of additional issues filed on the 11/11/11 (by the previous counsel for the defendant) which listed three additional issues and relied on by the current counsel for the defendant in his address to the court but these issues were not the ones accepted by the court when it granted the application for directions. 
The plaintiff commenced his evidence in chief on 11/11/2013 and on 2/12/2013 learned counsel for the plaintiff sought an adjournment to amend their pleadings. The application by the plaintiff for leave to amend his Statement of Claim to add paragraphs 21 and 22 to read as follows: 
a. The plaintiff says two searches were conducted on the 29th day of November 2010 and the 24th day of September, 2013 and both revealed the plaintiff as the owner of the land in dispute. b. The plaintiff further says that a publication in the Ghanaian Spectator, dated on the 17th day of September, 2011 also revealed details of the plaintiff at number 57 as the owner of the parcel of land in dispute. 
was moved and granted on the 20/5/2014.   
4  
Although both counsel stated that they will file addresses only counsel for the defendant did. 
With respect to the issue of whether or not the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the land in dispute on the basis that he was gifted the said land by his late father, learned counsel for the defendant submitted in his address that the issue of capacity like jurisdiction is very important and must be taken by the court even if the parties fail to take it and cited the cases of Duah v. Yorkwa [1993-94] 1 GLR 217, Sarkodiee I v. Boateng II [1982-83] 1 GLR  715 and Kwame v. Serwah [1993-94] 1 GLR 429. He stated that from the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, what he meant by bequeathed was a gift. He added that the plaintiff had to establish his capacity by leading evidence that he had a gift either at common law, statute or under customary law. He contended that if the gift was not a customary gift, it has to be proved with a deed of gift. He stressed that no deed of gift has been tendered in court. He stated that from the evidence led the plaintiff’s father had no document on the land in dispute. He submitted that from the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness he is relying on a customary law gift but no evidence was led on that as no evidence was led on any of the incidents of a gift at customary law especially aseda and concluded that the plaintiff has not been able to establish a capacity to issue the writ. He relied on the cases of Abdul Rahman Osumanu Giwah & Ors v. Baba Ladi; Suit No. CA/NOJ4/36/2013 SC unreported dated 29 July 2013, Mahama Hausa v. Baako Hausa [1972] 2 GLR 469, Asare v. Kumodji [2000] SCGLR 298, Akunsah v. Botchway & Jei River Farm Ltd. [2011] 1 SCGLR 288, Barko v. Mustapha and Ano. [1964] GLR 78 and In Re Ohene (Dec’d); Adiyia v. Kwere [1975] 2 GLR 89. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that even if the property belonged to the plaintiff’s father, which is denied, the proper persons to bring the writ are the administrators of the estate of Francis Amevor and not the plaintiff who is not an administrator.  
I have considered the evidence adduced and submission made by learned counsel for the defendant and come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff is not the rightful owner of the land in dispute on the basis that he was gifted the said land by his late father as the evidence led did not support his claim. 
On the issue of whether or not the Defendant is in adverse possession of the disputed property, he led evidence to prove that he was not in adverse possession. Learned 
5  
counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant led evidence and tendered exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 to indicate that he is a lessee of the Johnson family who are the owners of the land in dispute. He said in exhibit 4 the administrators of the estate of Francis Amevor were informed by the Johnson family of the imminent demolition of their structure and they have not challenged the demolition or the defendant’s occupation of the land. He stated that the evidence is that upon the demolition it was the plaintiff’s attorney who went to report to the police. He stressed that it was the Johnsons who maintained control of the land and the plaintiff’s father was permitted to put up a small structure to do his printing work and he was not in exclusive possession of the land. He stated that the Johnson family had the authority to lease their land to the defendant and they did. He said they lawfully ejected everyone from the land and put the defendant in possession so the defendant cannot be said to be in adverse possession as he is on the land as a licensee of the true owners of the land, i.e. the Johnsons. He quoted Ghana Land Law and Conveyancing by B.J da Rocha and C. H. K. Lodoh at page 163 which defined adverse possession as “possession which is inconsistent with the title of the true owner of the land and not possession under a license from him or under some contract or trust”. He asserted that to be in adverse possession, there must be a squatter and a true owner and in this case, the defendant who is a lessee of the Johnson family cannot be said to be in adverse possession.  
From the evidence led, it is clear that the defendant is not in adverse possession as he established how he came to be on the land lawfully. I therefore find as a fact that the defendant is not in adverse possession.     
Concerning the issue of whether or not the Defendant’s grantors had the authority of the principal members of Johnson family to sell the disputed property to the Defendant, the defendant and his witness led evidence to establish same. 
With regards to the issue of whether or not the plaintiff is estopped by the judgment in the suit entitled George Kofi Gyima versus J. K. Abrokwa, Civil Appeal No. H1/ 64/09 delivered on 5th November, 2009 from litigating the title of the defendant to the land in dispute, it is a fact that the defendant has a judgment of the court   (exhibit 5) in his favour. The said judgment has not been quashed or set aside it is therefore binding and serves as an estoppel.  
6  
To determine the issue of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his claims, the plaintiff’s lawful attorney Francis Amevor tendered exhibit A the Power of Attorney and said the plaintiff is his step brother who lives in London. He testified that their late father Francis Heletsi Amevor gifted the land in dispute to the plaintiff. He stated that before their late father gifted the land to the plaintiff he had started processing the land document in 1992. He said after their father’s death in 1995, the plaintiff gave him a Power of Attorney to continue with the registration of the land and he was given a new yellow card exhibit B. He also tendered exhibits C and D being searches conducted on the 29th November 2010 and 24th September 2013 respectively on the land. He asserted that after that they had a publication in the Spectator on the 17th September 2011 at page 26 tendered as exhibit E. According to him he was to follow up to get the certificate but due to the court cases he had not done so. He gave evidence that his late father had been on the land since 1960 and died in 1995. He added that he was working with his late father in the Salvation Press on the land and their building was on it.  He contended that on 21st April 2010 the defendant came to the land and demolished the Salvation Press claiming the land had been sold to him. Plaintiff’s attorney said he reported the issue to the police and they were advised to go to court. Under cross-examination plaintiff’s attorney said his late father owned the land but there is no document executed in favour of him. He said there is a yellow card in the plaintiff’s name. He said exhibit A was signed in 2010 but stamped on 11th February 2002. He stated that his late father had two wives, his mother Cecilia Esibu and his step mother Rosina Adjorlolo also known as Mrs. Amevor. He stated that their father did not make a Will and Letters of Administration have been taken on his estate. He said the administrators of the said estate were David Agbeko Amevor, Esther Amevor, Rosina Amevor and he Francis Amevor. He denied that until they instituted this writ the defendant had exercised control of the land for 13 years. He also denied that David Agbeko pulled down the defendant’s structure on the land. 
PW1 William Korshie Ahiabli, a private investigator and surveillance operative said the plaintiff and his lawful attorney are is uncles as they are his mother’s cousins. He said he came to Accra on 2nd January 1959 and was visiting his grandfather the late Francis Koshie Eletsie Amevor. He said around 1993 he went to Land Title with his grandfather and on the third occasion he gave him a yellow card and asked him to be checking it for him due to his old age. He said his grandfather died on the 5th 
7  
June 1995 and after his funeral he handed over the yellow card exhibit B to the person whose name was on it, that is, the plaintiff herein. According to him plaintiff said he is busy so he plaintiff will prefer his lawful attorney herein to continue with the process and pleaded with him to assist his lawful attorney. He said later plaintiff’s attorney told him the printing press on the land was being demolished and he told him to go to the police and he later joined him at the police station where they gave their statements and the defendant herein against whom they made the complaint was invited and he also came to the police station and they were advised to go to court. He said the printing press belonged to his grandfather and had been on the land since 1974.  He said presently there is a tall building standing on the land replacing the old Salvation Press. Under cross-examination PW1 said gave him only the yellow card but did not show him any document on the land so he does not know if he had any indenture on the land but maintained that his grandfather told him the land is his. He said his grandfather gave him the yellow card three years before he died and within that period he introduced him to one Mr. Mensah who said he was working on it so he should give him time and later he gave back the document to the owner and does not know where it got to. 
The defendant testified that in 1998, he negotiated with the principal members of the Johnson family for the land in dispute and tendered the lease he got from the Johnson family as exhibit 1 and took effective possession of it. He said there were tenants and some Johnson family members staying in old structures on the land and the family cleared them. He added that there was a small structure built at the edge of the land used as a printing press by the late Mr. Francis Amevor and later used by Mrs. Rosina Amevor as a shop for selling drinks. He said the Johnson family wrote to the tenants to leave the site through their lawyer and took them to court and tendered exhibit 2 in support of his evidence.  According to him the tenants requested for a short time to leave the site and which was agreed on and they all left. He stated that the family told Mrs. Amevor that they needed the place she was occupying and she left and tendered exhibit 3.  He also tendered exhibit 4 a letter from the family to the administrators of Mr. Amevor to demolish the printing press. He said George Kofi Gyima took him to court with respect to the land in dispute and he tendered the judgment in the defendants’ favour as exhibit 5. He asserted that he has developed the said land but the plaintiff is claiming it and tendered exhibit 6 as a search conducted which shows that the land does not belong to the plaintiff. Under cross- 
8  
examination the defendant said his official name is Andrews Asante Abrokwa but he is also known as Jimmy Kwasi Abrokwa, and admitted in exhibit 5 he was sued the by name J. K. Abrokwa. He tendered exhibit 7 a National Identification Card bearing the name A. A. Abrokwa as his official name. He said he entered into the agreement with the Johnson family in 1998 but it was documented in 2001 as stated in exhibit 1. He said he did not do a search at the Survey and Mapping Division of Lands Commission. He stated that he is not aware of exhibit C. He said he is not aware that there was a publication about the disputed land for which he never objected to. He said he and the Johnson family demolished the printing press. 
DW1 Samuel Awusu Maxwell Johnson testified that the land in dispute is owned by the Johnson family of Accra. He stated that the defendant came to the said family for land. He asserted that he knows the plaintiff and he was born in their family house. He said the defendant is the one in occupation of the land in dispute now. He tendered exhibit 7 an AMA environmental bill in the name of Baffoe (carpenter) dated 26th February 2003 which relates to the land that has the printing press and other structures. He also tendered exhibit 8 a letter written by Mrs. Amevor (plaintiff’s father’s wife) and contended that before exhibit 8 Mrs. Amevor paid rent to him. He tendered exhibits 9 and 9A. He stated that he was not in the country so could not tell how the plaintiff’s father came on the land but it cannot be true that the land was sold to the plaintiff’s father because they do not sell their lands but lease it. He   gave evidence that so far as the Johnson family is concerned it is the defendant who must be on the land in dispute. Under cross-examination DW1 said he testified at the police station in connection with the land in dispute for the family’s interest and not for anybody. He admitted he testified with respect to exhibit 5 for the plaintiff therein against the defendant therein and herein. He stated that it was his father and uncle who gave the land to the defendant. He said the lease between the Johnson family and the defendant was signed between 1998 or 1999 and he was a witness to it. He said he was a witness to the lease agreement between G.K. Gyimah and the Johnsons. He said he was not in the country when the buildings including the printing press were demolished but when he returned the plaintiff’s lawful attorney reported the case to him and he accompanied him to the police station and when the police asked him he told him he didn’t know who demolished it. He said when he came down from London he sought the permission of Rosina Amevor to develop the land not because the Amevors were the owners of the land but because 
9  
they had buildings on it. DW1 said he does not know of any contractual relationship between R. M. Johnson and the plaintiffs. He added that R. M. Johnson is a younger brother to his father J. B. Johnson who was the head of the family and his uncle would not do anything without consulting his father. 
I have deliberately stated the detailed evidence adduced by the parties and their witnesses in this case which is the basis for the judgment. DW1 who has related to both parties herein has testified that the land in dispute belongs to the defendant because he got it from their family the rightful owners of it. He has corroborated the defendant’s evidence which is supported with documentary evidence. I have carefully evaluated the totality of the evidence led and am persuaded by that of the defendant.  
An evaluation of the evidence adduced indicates that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proof on him as required by Section 11(1) and (4) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323). The plaintiffs claim fails and judgment is entered for the defendant.  I have considered the factors stated in Order 74 rule 2(3) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) as amended by C.I.87 and the facts and circumstances of this case and award costs of GH¢8,000.00  to the defendant  against the plaintiff herein.  
      (SGD) GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)    
Counsel: Mr. Ellis K Quashigah for Plaintiff.                Mr. Nii. Akwei Bruce-Thompson for Defendant. 