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 15th May, 2015, transferring this case to me. In an amended Statement of Claim, filed on the 20th day of July, 2012, the plaintiff claims against the defendants the following reliefs: 
1.  A declaration of title to all that parcel of land the property of the plaintiff situate at South Legon, Accra, containing an approximate area of 2.626 acres, described more particularly in the accompanying Statement of Claim a portion of which land the defendants have trespassed upon and caused damages to structures thereon.  2. Damages for trespass committed by the defendants, their servants, agents, assigns and/or workmen to the aforementioned land including consequential losses occasioned by the destruction of the structures on the plaintiff’s land. 3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents, assigns, and/or workmen from encroaching upon, entering, occupying or interfering in any way with the plaintiff’s ownership and possession of the said land.  4. Further or other reliefs. 5. Costs.  
2  
The plaintiff is a company registered under the laws of the Republic of Ghana and engaged principally in the business of Real Estate Development. The 1st defendant is a businessman and the managing director and joint owner of the 2nd defendant company. The facts of this case are that the land in dispute located at South Legon or North Dzorwulu forms part of a larger piece of land acquired by the Government of Ghana in 1946 to build the University College of Gold Coast (now University of Ghana). It was occupied by the Department of Rural Development and the said department still has its building on part of the land in dispute. The plaintiff acquired the land from the original owners of the land, the Osu Stool and the defendants from the Government of Ghana through the Lands Commission. Both parties in this case built walls on the land in dispute but the walls were demolished. The Osu Stool instituted an action against the Lands Commission at the High Court which is still pending.  The plaintiff called three witnesses. The plaintiff’s representative, Kwabena Nketia, the Director of Operations (hereinafter plaintiff’s representative) testified on behalf of the plaintiff company; Nii Nortei Narh with the stool name Nii Nortei Agbo I (PW1) the chief of Kotobabi, Dzorwulu and Roman Ridge and the Osu Stool Lands and property chairman and Isaac Nii Nortey (PW2), PW1’s son, a contractor and member of the Osu Traditional Council.    The plaintiff’s case is that upon the grant of the land in dispute by the Osu Stool in 2006, it went into possession putting a caretaker on the land. The plaintiff built a fence wall and security posts on the land and was in occupation without let or hindrance until recently when the defendants without any justification came on the plaintiff’s property and with the aid of bulldozers and macho men demolished portions of the fence wall and security posts. The plaintiff tendered exhibits A - the indenture given to it by the Osu Stool, B-picture of the demolished wall, E- the Writ of Summons against the Lands Commission, G- the injunction, H- ruling of the High Court, J- judgment of the High Court, amongst others.  The defendants called two witnesses. The 1st defendant who is the managing director and joint owner of the 2nd defendant company testified on behalf of himself and the 2nd defendant. DW1, Timothy Anyidoho is a Senior Lands Officer at the Lands Commission.  The defendant’s case is that the 2nd defendant acquired the land in dispute from the Government of Ghana through the Lands Commission in 2010.  The defendants contended that it was the Lands Commission in the exercise of its constitutional 
3  
function that sought the assistance of National Security to demolish the plaintiff’s wall. The defendants tendered exhibits 1and 2, Leases from the Lands Commission to the 2nd defendant amongst others.   The issues for determination are as follows: 1. Whether or not the grant of the disputed land to the plaintiff’s by the Osu stool is null and void and conveyed no title whatsoever.  2. Whether or not the grant of the disputed land by the Lands Commission to the 2nd defendant in 2010 during the pendency of Suit No.: BL 90/2004 was unlawful.  3. Whether or not, by reason of the judgment in Suit No.: SOL 21/10, the 2nd defendant and its grantor, the Lands Commission are estopped from laying any claim to any of the Osu Stool lands including the land currently in dispute.  4. Any other issues arising from the pleadings. With respect to the issue of whether or not the grant of the disputed land to the plaintiff’s by the Osu stool is null and void and conveyed no title whatsoever, under cross-examination the plaintiff’s representative stated that no search was conducted at the Lands Commission at the time they were acquiring the land. He stated that they attempted to register the document given to them by the Osu Stool in 2006 but their application was not granted and they have not applied again.  He admitted that the plaintiff caused the demolition of the wall the defendants put up on two occasions. PW1, identified his signature on exhibit A. PW1 testified that that when they started granting out the lands, the Lands Commission challenged them and gave out the lands to some companies so they took legal action against the Commission around 2004-2005. PW1 explained that the University of Ghana has been built and there is a vast land remaining which the Lands Commission was granting to people to use for purposes other than that which the Government took the land hence the suit.  The 1st defendant testified that the 2nd defendant acquired the land in dispute from the Government of Ghana through the Lands Commission in 2010. He stated that in June 2011, the Lands Commission fulfilled its promise to demolish all the structures put up by squatters on the land with the assistance of National Security. He stressed that the land in dispute cannot be for the plaintiff because before he acquired the land, he conducted a search (exhibit 3) which indicated that the land was in the name of the State that is the Lands Commission after which he applied for the land. The 1st defendant contended that the injunction referred to by the plaintiff has been set 
4  
aside by the court as per exhibit 4 hence the court had authorized Lands Commission to continue with its mandate to administer that land as per the Act that established it. Under cross-examination, the 1st defendant said in their application to the Lands Commission they indicated the purpose for which they wanted to acquire the land as to set up a sister company that was going into the steel industry and other training facilities that will create jobs for people. He admitted that the land was given to the defendants for civic and cultural purposes only. He also admitted that the 2nd defendant company was incorporated at the time the defendants submitted their application to the Lands Commission. During cross-examination, the 1st defendant stated that when the walls the defendants put up were repeatedly demolished, he approached the Lands Commission about it and they told him some squatters who claimed to be owners of the land have been organising thugs to destroy people’s property in that area. He denied that when the Lands Commission told him there was an issue they told him it was a court case pending.  DW1 gave evidence that the defendants are beneficiaries of a government allocation of land at South Legon, Accra. He said he was personally responsible for inspecting the two plots of land before they were allocated to the defendants. He contended that there was a wall and structure on the said land, so after the grant of the land to the defendants in November 2010, in 2011 the Lands Commission had to secure vacant possession for the defendants. He added that the Commission sought the assistance from the Land Task Force comprising the police and the military in order to demolish the structures on the land to grant vacant possession to the defendants. He claimed that it was the then Regional Lands Officer who ordered the demolishing of the wall on the in dispute but due to the burning of the files rooms of the Lands Commission, the correspondence file which contains that evidence got burnt. Under crossexamination DW1 said in 2010 he was a Lands Officer.   I deliberately narrated the evidence adduced by both parties herein, although it may not be directly relevant for the determination of this issue, to assist in the understanding of this case and the final orders of the court.  Learned counsel for the defendants submitted in his written address that both parties in this suit admit that the land in dispute forms part of a larger piece of land compulsorily acquired by the Colonial Government from the Osu stool for the purpose of developing what is now the University of Ghana at Legon. He stated that the effect of the said compulsory acquisition was to completely extinguish whatever rights, interests and title the Osu stool had in the said and that being the case it had 
5  
no interest or title in the said land, which it can legally transfer to the plaintiff. It was submitted that the maxim “nemo dat quod non habet” which means “no one gives what he does not have or “no one transfers (a right) that he does not possess” applies to the Osu stool. He stated that the purported grant made in 2004 by the Osu stool to the plaintiff conveyed no title or interest whatsoever to the plaintiff, consequently the same is null and void.   I have evaluated the facts, circumstances and submissions made by both learned counsel in this case and I am persuaded by the submissions made by learned counsel for the defendants as stated above. Since the reasons for it have been stated in the submissions made by learned counsel for the defendants it is not necessary to repeat same. It is not disputed that the land in dispute is government land for now. I therefore find as a fact that the grant of the disputed land to the plaintiff’s by the Osu stool is null and void and conveyed no title whatsoever.  Concerning the issue of whether or not the grant of the disputed land by the Lands Commission to the 2nd defendant in 2010 during the pendency of Suit No.: BL 90/2004 was unlawful, PW2 gave evidence that, that is the suit the Osu Stool brought against the Lands Commission for selling out the lands at South Legon. He said the court granted an injunction against the Lands Commission in 2005 but it did not comply with the said order so the Traditional Council made a publication. He stated that the said suit is still pending in court.   Learned counsel for the defendants submitted in his written address that PW2’s testimony that, despite publications in the press, proceedings in court, promises made by the government of the day and petitions, the Government of Ghana is yet to hand over the unused land to the Osu stool, ought to be expunged because of the failure to file the pursuant Amended Statement of Claim granted by the court.  It must be stated that on 16/2/2016 when the court granted the plaintiff’s application to amend their Statement of Claim, learned counsel for the defendants was present and did not object to PW2 continuing his evidence (when the plaintiff had not yet filed the amended Statement of Claim). He is therefore deemed to have waived his right to object to it especially when there was an opportunity for an application to be made to exclude the said evidence. As the evidence is not illegal as defined by law the court will rely on it. The application by the plaintiff for leave to amend their pleadings, that is, to amend their amended Statement of Claim filed on 12/2/2016 was granted on the 16/2/2016. 
6  
Learned counsel for the plaintiff filed the said amendment on the 11/10/2016 after parties had closed their case and filed their addresses and waiting judgment.  This is irregular as a party has to file pleadings within a reasonable time where the court does not specify the time to do so after the grant of an application to file or amend pleadings. Under cross-examination, DW1 said with the institution of this case, he got to know that the owner of the wall that was demolished is the plaintiff herein. He stated that he is aware that there is a suit pending before the High Court involving the Osu Stool and the Lands Commission with regards to the general area in which the land in dispute is situated. He admitted that at a point the court granted an injunction in favour of the Osu Stool against the Lands Commission.  Learned counsel for the defendants submitted in his written address that PW1 tendered exhibits G and H which are the ruling of the court and a copy of the order of injunction respectively, to support his assertion that the Lands Commission was restrained from dealing with or selling the South Legon lands during the pendency of the said suit Osu Stool vrs. Lands Commission, No. BL 90/2004. Learned counsel stated that the said ruling was set aside and superseded by the ruling of the same court dated the 11th of September, 2008, exhibit 4 tendered by the 1st defendant. He contended that the said exhibit 4, apart from restraining the Osu stool, also authorized the Lands Commission to carry on with its statutory function of managing the land in dispute pending the final determination of the suit. He added that as part of that management, the Lands Commission had the constitutional duty to make grants of Government lands like the one in dispute in this action as per Article 258(1) (a) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. He stated that the only fetter that can be placed on the Lands Commission in the exercise of that function in where like in this case, it was initially restrained by the court. Counsel submitted that in this case, that restraint was vacated per exhibit 4. He stressed that since the land in dispute was granted to the 2nd defendant after the earlier injunction had been vacated and therefore there was no restriction on the functions of the Lands Commission at the time, the said grant was properly and lawfully made and cannot therefore be assailed.     Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted in his written address that at the material time that the Lands Commission purported to make the grant of the disputed land to the defendants both parties knew of the pendency of Suit No.: BL 90/2004 and the 2005 injunction order which the Lands Commission maneuvered to set aside at the blind side of the Osu stool. He stated that granted that the order setting aside the 
7  
2005 injunction was legitimate that did not warrant the disposal of the disputed land by the Lands Commission to the defendants under the guise of “their statutory function of managing Government lands” to dispose of the land during the pendency of the suit. It was submitted that the Lands Commission must have been fully aware of the pronouncements at the time by the government of the day to return the unutilised lands back to their original allodial owners and yet they defied the courts.  It was contended that in this case as in Suit No.: BL 90/2004, it is not disputed that the lands acquired under the Public Lands Ordinance Cap 142 were not being utilised for the purpose for which they were originally taken. Counsel stated that Article 20 Clause 6 of the 192 Constitution stipulates that the owners of the property immediately before the compulsory acquisition shall be given the first option to acquire the property should it not be used for the purpose and that provision creates a reversionary interest in the original owners of the lands who are in this case the plaintiff’s grantors the Osu stool. It was submitted that having instituted Suit No.: BL 90/2004 to protect that reversionary interest it amounted to an obstruction of justice for the Lands Commission to ignore the pendency of the action and proceed to dispose of the very subject matter to the defendants herein for purposes totally unconnected with the use of the land for the University or for any purpose totally unconnected to it. He urged the court not to lend its hand to the illegitimate grant made by the Lands Commission in flagrant disregard to the pending court action. Learned counsel for the defendants submitted that from the evidence adduced the Osu stool had unsuccessfully used political means to regain ownership of the said lands in consequence of which it instituted the said case of Osu Stool vrs. Lands Commission, No. BL 90/2004 for a declaration that the said land is not being used for the purpose for which it was acquired, hence be given the first option to reacquire the same. He stated that the case is still pending before the court so the stool is yet to obtain that declaration. He added that, that fact and the fact that the Lands Commission by exhibit 4 was authorized to manage the said lands further make the grant to the 2nd defendant legal. It must be stated that the statements attributed to governments of the day to return stool lands taken over by government to them are a mere indication of intent and cannot be said to be legally binding or enforceable. For the land to revert to the original stool there has to be a legally binding action which will serve as notice to all. This has not yet occurred with respect to the land in dispute here. 
8  
I have considered the totality of the evidence adduced and the detailed submissions made by both learned counsel in support of their case. I am persuaded by the submissions made by learned counsel for the defendants and the reasons given for those submissions which have been stated above. It is therefore not necessary to repeat same. An evaluation of the evidence adduced leads to the conclusion that the grant of the disputed land by the Lands Commission to the 2nd defendant in 2010 during the pendency of Suit No.: BL 90/2004 was not unlawful. On the issue of whether or not by reason of the judgment in Suit No.: SOL 21/10, the 2nd defendant and its grantor, the Lands Commission are estopped from laying any claim to any of the Osu Stool lands including the land currently in dispute, the 1st defendant said he was aware of the said suit entitled Nii Ako Nortei v. Lands Commission, and insisted that the Osu Stool was not in adverse possession as at the time the defendants acquired the land.  Learned counsel for the defendants submitted that under cross-examination PW1 admitted that the lands covered by the said judgment tendered as exhibit J, were Achimota and GIMPA lands that are different from the lands the subject–matter of Suit No.: BL 90/2004 or the land in dispute in this action. He emphasized that that since exhibit J relates only to the said Achimota and GIMPA lands, its effect cannot be extended to cover all other lands owned by the said Osu stool including the land in dispute in this action. He concluded that no issue of estoppel arises in the first instance and both the Lands Commission and the defendants cannot be estopped from laying claim to the land in dispute.   Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that PW2 admitted that the subject matter in the mentioned case in this issue is totally different and unrelated to the land the subject matter of the instant case.  From what has been stated above, it is obvious that this issue should not have been listed as one for trial as it is unrelated to this case. An evaluation of the evidence adduced indicates that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proof on it as required by Section 11(1) and (4) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323). The plaintiff’s 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, including the fact that both parties have had their wall 
9  
and/or structures demolished. This case demonstrates the frustrations and expenses involved in acquiring legitimate land in Ghana and the role the relevant institutions play in this. Having considered all these, I come to the conclusion that it is in the interest of justice that no order be made as to costs. There is therefore no order as to costs.   
      (SGD.) GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)   
COUNSEL: 1. Mr. Peter Zwennes for Plaintiff.  2. Mr. William Addo for Defendants.    