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 10th February 2015.  
The plaintiff claims against the defendants the following reliefs: 
1. A declaration that the plaintiff is the bonafide owner of Plot Nos. 80 and 82 Millennium City Kasoa.  2. A declaration that the purported sale of Plot Nos. 80 and 82 which forms part of a larger piece or parcel of land sold to the 1st defendant contained in an unregistered indenture dated 20th May, 2007 is null and void and of no legal effect.  3. Perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd defendant, his workmen, agents, and assigns from interfering or dealing with the land.  4. Against the defendants jointly and severally damages for trespass. 5. Costs.  
The plaintiff’s case is that he is the owner of two plots of land at Kasoa Millennium City known as Plot Nos. 80 and 82. He contended that the 2nd defendant who claims to have acquired the said land from the 1st defendant has put up a structure on his land. The 1st defendant case is that the land is at Essel and Budu village. Its case is that that the two plots claimed by the plaintiff falls 
2  
within their boundaries. It stated that it granted the land in dispute to the 2nd defendant who has put up a structure on it.  
Learned counsel for the plaintiff stressed in his written address that although the 2nd defendant was served with the writ of summons he only filed an appearance through his lawyer who is also the lawyer for the 1st defendant. 
The issues for trial are as follows: 
i) Whether or not the plaintiff is the bonafide owner of Plot Nos. 80 and 82 at Kasoa Millennuim City.  ii) Whether or not Adom Spinning Company the Assignors of Plot Nos. 80 and 82 to the plaintiff fraudulently acquired the land.  iii) Any other issue arising out of the pleadings.  
The defendants also filed additional issues which are the following: 
1. Whether or not the subject matter of the trial, the disputed land, is situate at Asare-Budu and not Kasoa and whether or not the parties are laying claim to different parcels of land.  2. Whether or not the defendants are entitled to maintain their grant.  
Although both counsel stated that they would file addresses only counsel for the plaintiff did.  
Considering the issues listed for trial, I think it is best to determine first the first additional issue, that is, whether or not the subject matter of the trial, the disputed land, is situate at Asare-Budu and not Kasoa and whether or not the parties are laying claim to different parcels of land.  
The plaintiff gave evidence that the land in dispute, that is, his two plots of land are at Kasoa Millennium City. The 1st defendant’s representative Mr. Emmanuel Manu is the Managing Director of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant’s representative contended that their land is at Essel and Budu village. He said plots 80 and 82 claimed by the plaintiff falls within their boundaries. Under cross-examination the 1st defendant’s representative admitted that since the plaintiff got his land from Adom Spinning it is not correct that the plaintiff’s land is part of their land. During re-examination 1st defendant’s representative stated that the plaintiff’s plot and the 2nd defendant’s plot are the same property. DW1 said the land claimed by the plaintiff is not the same as the defendants land. He contended that the land claimed by the plaintiff is on the grid line of 
3  
170 and 180 and the plaintiff is using that to claim 190 and 200. Under crossexamination DW1 said Essel and Budu village is his grandfather’s village. He said he knows Kasoa Millennium City and it is different from Essel and Budu village. He stated that he knows the land in dispute. He asserted that the plaintiff is claiming ownership of lands with a different plot number. He admitted that the parties herein are claiming the same land.  
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted in his written address that although the parties gave different localities as to where the disputed land was situated in their evidence both the plaintiff and 1st defendant indicated that they were litigating over the same land. He stated that the evidence settles the issue that the parties are litigating over the same land and not different parcels of land.   
From the totality of the evidence led, it is clear that the parties herein say their land is at a different locality and have site plans which show that the land they are claiming is at different places. However, the evidence adduced establishes beyond any shadow of doubt that the parties herein are not laying claim to different parcels of land but the same parcel of land. I find as a fact that the parties herein are disputing over the same parcel of land.   
Concerning the issue of whether or not Adom Spinning Company the Assignors of Plot Nos. 80 and 82 to the plaintiff fraudulently acquired the land, under cross-examination the plaintiff said he was not aware that Adom Spinning is in court for fraudulently acquiring land in Gomoa Fetteh. He disputed that the people who made the grant to him did not pass through the normal procedure and said the land was given to them, they paid for it and were given indentures which were registered by the Lands Commission at Cape Coast. Under crossexamination the 1st defendant’s representative said they contend that the purported grant of Adom Spinning was tainted with fraud because from the indenture the oath of proof is dated 25/7/97 and the instrument itself was executed on 1/1996. He added that the site plan attached has a vertical grid line between 10, 99 and 1/1996 but the plaintiff is claiming 10/99 and 11/100 outside the range Adom Spinning property. DW2 Amos Wuntah Wuni works with the Lands Commission as the deputy Executive Secretary in charge of operations. DW2 said he worked in the Central Region from March 1998 to June 2003 as the Regional Lands Officer. DW2 tendered exhibit 5 a truncated copy of a document. DW2, who is a lawyer, stated that he cannot comment on whether or not the documents being processed for Kofi Asmah’s companies were tainted with fraud. He said some of the irregularities on the documents 
4  
were remediable and explained that some of the site plans could be properly drawn or rectified and the Gomoa Fetteh Salt Company encumbrance could have been resolved. Under cross-examination DW2 said he prepared the original of exhibit 5 but cannot vouch for each page of the photocopy tendered. Under cross-examination DW2 admitted that he is not in a position to tell the court whether or not the alleged irregularities he mentioned have been corrected. 
In his address learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that the defendants rely on paragraphs 7 to 9 of their defence as a basis for fraud in respect of the acquisition of the land by the plaintiff’s grantor, Adom Spinning Company Limited. He said their evidence was based on exhibit 5 tendered in evidence by DW2. He submitted that firstly, it is not stated anywhere in exhibit 5 that the grant from the Gomoa Fetteh Stool to Adom Spinning Company Limited was tainted with fraud. According to him, Adom Spinning is only mentioned as one of the companies referred to as the sister companies of Kofi Asmah on page 1 of exhibit 5. He said secondly, there was no reference to the plaintiff’s land in exhibit 5, and most significantly and above all, DW2, who is the author of exhibit 5 could not confirm any fraud in the job assigned to him. He stressed that fraud is not mentioned or imputed anywhere in the said report. He added that from the comments in exhibit 5, the report had nothing to do with fraud but was about checking and rectifying anomalies in respect of the document submitted. The plaintiff’s counsel stated that if the author of a document says he cannot comment on fraud in what he has written, it implies a polite way of admitting that there was no fraud otherwise he would have said so, just like he admitted there were irregularities. He contended that exhibit 5 pre dates the registration of the plaintiff’s title deeds, that is, exhibit A, therefore if a report is written by the Lands Commission or its officer in 2002 and in 2013 the same Lands Commission registers the plaintiff’s title deeds then the presumption is that it found no irregularity or fraud in the document otherwise it would not have registered it. 
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the 1st defendant testified that it had taken 21st Century Company Limited and the Lands Commission to court at Agona Swedru in respect of the land and for which an injunction had been placed on the registration of some documents. He stated that that action is in itself an indictment on exhibit 5 which the 1st defendant seeks to establish the fraud. He pointed out that 21st Century Limited and Adom Spinning Company 
5  
Limited may be sister companies but they are for all purposes separate legal entities. He added that the fact that the documents of 21st Century are being challenged does not mean there are problems with the document of Adom Spinning, especially when no causal link is established as regards the irregularity between the companies. He stated that in an attempt to further establish the fraud, DW1 testified that the Gomoa Fetteh Stool, the grantors of the land to both plaintiff and the defendant did not have the legal capacity to do so. He said that evidence is a betrayal of the 1st defendant’s document which was signed by Nana Abor Yamoah the Chief of Gomoa Fetteh. He said DW1 tendered in evidence a judgment, exhibit 4, purporting to distool Nana Ewusie Abor XIX, the Chief of Gomoa Fetteh who executed the lease in favour of the plaintiff’s grantor. He contended that firstly, the said judgment was not filed on notice to enable the plaintiff investigate its authenticity. He said secondly, the judgment ought to have been registered since it affected interest in land and therefore it is of no legal effect. He added that thirdly, there was no evidence in court that it was a final judgment. He submitted that granted without admitting that the said judgment has a legal effect, the last paragraph of page 8 had the following recommendation “This chieftaincy tribunal therefore recommends to the Gomoa Akyempim Traditional Council to remove the name of the 1st defendant Nana Ewusie Abor XIX from the...of the chiefs of Gomoa Akyempim Traditional area with immediate effect”. He said there is no evidence to show that this recommendation was carried out to conclude the purported removal of Nana Ewusie Abor XIX. He added that the judgment did not invalidate any document executed by Nana Ewusie Abor XIX in his position as the chief of Gomoa Fetteh Stool. He said the leases executed was on behalf of the Gomoa Fetteh Stool and its people and his removal could not invalidate leases signed in that capacity unless specifically set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.  He emphasized that removal from office is different from setting aside documents executed while in office as a chief. He stated that what is significant is that notwithstanding the said judgment DW1 said he and his family have taken the grants made by the said Nana Ewusie Abor XIX which compromises the finality of the said judgment. He stated that it is clear that DW1 did not believe in the finality of the said judgment otherwise he would not be litigating in court. He concluded that the claim of fraudulent acquisition of the land by the plaintiff’s grantor could not be established. He maintained that the plaintiff’s title remains unassailable as admitted by DW1 in his evidence that no court has given judgment against the plaintiff’s grantor.                  
6  
The only exception to the rule on proof by the preponderance of probabilities as the standard of proof in civil cases is in Section 13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) which provides that in a civil action, an allegation that a crime has been committed must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. This section raises the standard of proof to the level of proof required in criminal cases. I am persuaded by learned counsel for the plaintiff’s submissions on this issue and do not wish to repeat same. I have carefully considered the totality of evidence led and I am not convinced that Adom Spinning Company the Assignors of Plot Nos. 80 and 82 to the plaintiff fraudulently acquired the land. This is because the evidence led does not meet the high standard of proof required to establish same. I therefore find as a fact that Adom Spinning Company the Assignors of Plot Nos. 80 and 82 to the plaintiff did not fraudulently acquire the land.       
With respect to the issue of whether or not the plaintiff is the bonafide owner of Plot Nos. 80 and 82 at Kasoa Millennuim City, the plaintiff testified that he is a banker and lives at Ho. According to the plaintiff his employer, Ghana Commercial Bank entered into an agreement with Adom Spinning Company Limited for the sale of land to some staff members including him. He said they were about 90 staff who took advantage of the purchase and payment was deducted from their salaries. He stated that he paid GH¢4,400.00 for two plots herein and was given an indenture, exhibit A. He said he registered the documents at the Lands Department as No. 760/2013 and did not face any difficulties in registering the land. He testified that in February 2013 or thereabouts he visited the land and saw some development on it and met a representative of the 1st defendant. He added that the police took him to the site and he met the representative of the 1st defendant and asked them to stop working on the land but they refused so he applied for an injunction at the Cape Coast High Court. The plaintiff said he learnt that it was the 1st defendant that sold the property to the 2nd defendant. He asserted that he took photographs of the structure erected by the defendant on the land and tendered it as exhibit B. He said at the police station the 1st defendant produced a document that encompassed a large tract of land including his. He contended that the chief of Gomoa Fetteh granted the land to his grantors on the 1/4/96 and from the document he saw at the police station, he had an earlier grant. Under crossexamination the 1st defendant’s representative said he was aware that the plaintiff’s land has been registered. Under cross-examination DW1 admitted that to the best of his knowledge no court has given judgment against the plaintiff’s grantor. 
7  
In his address learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff’s evidence and his pleadings establish that he has unassailable title to the land in dispute. He stated that the plaintiff tendered exhibit A his title deed which is duly registered under the Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122) with registration number 760/2013. He added that that document is a deed of assignment executed between Adom Spinning Company Limited and the plaintiff. He stated that the recitals of the said document show the title deeds of the plaintiff’s grantor which is a lease executed between the Gomoa Fetteh Stool and Adom Spinning Company with registration number 1104/97. He contended that on the contrary the 1st defendant’s title deed is unregistered and therefore of no effect as provided for under Act 122. He stressed that the 1st defendant claimed it was unable to register its title deeds following an injunction granted by the Swedru High Court in a suit involving its grantors and the 21st Century Company, a sister company of the plaintiff’s grantors. Learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that there was no documentary proof in support of the 1st defendant’s assertions and same ought to be rejected. He contended that the issue is not why the 1st defendant has not been able to register its title deeds but whether it has a registered document.  
Learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that in the order of priority of grant, it stands clear from the pleadings and evidence that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant derived their root of title from the Gomoa Fetteh Stool, however whereas the plaintiff’s grantors (Adom Spinning Company Limited) had their grant in 1996, the 1st defendant had its grant in 2007 as seen from exhibits A and 1. He contended that as at the time of the grant to the 1st defendant, their grantors had nothing to give as the land had already been given to plaintiff’s grantors. He quoted Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet which implies you cannot give what you do not have. Counsel asserted that the only basis for setting aside the plaintiff’s title would be evidence of fraud in the grant but that could not be proved before the court.  
The plaintiff’s counsel said the 1st defendant tendered exhibit 2, a document purporting to be a search report seeming to suggest that the plot was for 21st Century Company Limited. He asserted that a search report must be accompanied by a site plan which must identify the portion of land for which the search is being conducted. He added that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant have different site plans and the search could only be conclusive as to the determination of the plaintiff’s ownership if his site plan was used for the 
8  
purpose, which was not the case in this instance. He stated that exhibit 2 is a search report conducted with the 1st defendant’s site plan and not the plaintiff’s site plan therefore its result cannot be conclusive in the determination of the plaintiff’s title to the land. He submitted that if the Lands Commission has registered a document which does not reflect in its search report, it does not invalidate the registration nor does it annul the grant more especially when it was not conducted with the plaintiff’s site plan. He added that secondly, for the 1st defendant to make a claim to ownership of the land the search report must reveal its name not another company or person to establish its case. He emphasized that a search report does not confer title but only gives information based upon which one can prove his title. He stated that since the plaintiff has produced a registered title deed which is prima facie evidence of ownership between the parties to the suit, in rebutting its validity the 1st defendant ought to have gone beyond a mere search report. He contended that the defendants ought to have called the Lands Commission to explain the discrepancy regarding the search and the plaintiff’s registered document to enable them discharge the burden of persuasion which had then shifted unto them. He also stated that the 1st defendant testified that its grantors had taken 21st Century Company Limited to court but that is not a subject matter of dispute before this court. Moreover he said if the search report is anything to go by, it is 21st Century Company Limited who can lay claim to the land and not the 1st defendant.      
I have deliberately given the details of the evidence of the parties herein and the submissions made by learned counsel for the plaintiff. I have considered the totality of the evidence led and I am persuaded by the submissions made by learned counsel for the plaintiff and do not wish to repeat same. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the plaintiff is the bonafide owner of Plot Nos. 80 and 82 at Kasoa Millennuim City and I find that as a fact. 
On the issue of whether or not the defendants are entitled to maintain their grant, the 1st defendant’s representative stated that the company owns land in the vicinity and it is located between the longitude grid line 1099 and 1100 as contained in their site plan. He said their land is 7.03 acres. He tendered a document between Nana Abor Yamoah and Meklloyds Company Limited as exhibit 1.  He stated that the transaction took place in 2002 when he had a meeting with the principal elders of the Gomoa Fetteh Stool and they agreed to grant the land for the company to give to the directors and employees of the company and he paid for it. The 1st defendant’s representative said in 2003 
9  
when they paid for the land a site plan was drawn on behalf of the company and approved by the Regional Lands Surveyor in Cape Coast. He stated that when the site plan was approved the 1st defendant company went down financially so they got the indenture signed in May 2007. He added that in 2009 they submitted the documents to the Lands Commission in Cape Coast for registration. According to him, a letter was sent to them requested a search to be conducted and the report issued described the site as belonging to 21st Century Company Limited. He said they disputed that because before the land was given to them they saw a memo from Lands Commission. The 1st defendant’s representative said their grantor the Gomoa Fetteh Stool is in court with 21st Century in the Cape Coast, Swedru and Winneba High Courts. He tendered exhibit 2 a search report dated 17th April 2007. He stated that the site is described as belonging to the 21st Century held from Nana Abor Ewusie. He said Adom Sinning Company has an interest in the property said to belong to 21st Century Limited. He asserted that since they took the land they have developed certain parts of same and made some grants to some members of staff of their company. He stressed that their company has not had any argument with anyone since the land was granted to them. He stated that they had not seen any member of Adom Spinning Company on the land and 21st Century has also not disturbed them. He said last year the plaintiff confronted one of the assigns that the property belongs to him. Under cross-examination the 1st defendant’s representative admitted that their indenture is not registered. He explained that they bought the land in 2007 but it is not registered because there is a suit against 21st Century by the family and since 2010 an injunction has been placed on the land. He admitted the 1st defendant is not a party to the said suit.  
DW1 Nana Abubarkai Sulemana said he is the head of family at Gomoa Fetteh Kakraba. According to DW1 in 2001, the 1st defendant’s representative led the 1st defendant to them and purchased 30 plots of land and paid for them. He said the land is at Atwaburem. He stated that at the material time their elder called Nana Kofi Otoboa transacted the purchase with the 1st defendant and gave them a document. DW1 stated that the land Adom Spinning is claiming does not belong to them but rather the 1st defendant. He contended that when they made the grant to the 1st defendant they them into possession of the land, that is, vacant possession, and there was no physical opposition to their possession. DW1 said they are in court against Adom Spinning Company at the Agona Swedru High Court. He explained that the owner of Adom Spinning, Kofi Asmah, claims he bought the land from Nana Abor Awusie but the said person 
10  
had no authority over the land. DW1 tendered exhibit 4, a 1913 judgment in support of his claim. Under cross-examination DW1 said he and Nan Ewusie are not from the same family but they are the grandchildren of his father. Under cross-examination DW1 said he knows Nana Abor Ewusie XIX and he was the chief at the time the land was granted to the plaintiff’s grantor but insisted the said chief did not have authority over the land. Under cross-examination DW1 said looking at the plaintiff’s documents, they were executed after the said chief’s death in 1998. Under cross-examination the 1st defendant’s representative stated that it was the 1st defendant that granted the land to the 2nd defendant and he has put up the one story structure on the property. Under cross-examination the 1st defendant’s representative stated that the land in dispute belongs to the 2nd defendant.   
Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendants are not entitled to maintain their grant in light of the submissions made in respect of the three other issues for trial. He stated that a defective title, an unregistered assignment, inability to prove fraud against the grant of the land to the plaintiff and the inconsistencies in the evidence of the defendants and their witnesses is a pointer to the fact that they are not entitled to maintain their grant.    
Having determined that the plaintiff is the owner of or has title to the land in dispute it follows that the defendants are not entitled to maintain their grant with respect to the said land. 
An evaluation of the evidence adduced indicates that the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proof on him as required by Section 11(1) and (4) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323). Judgment is therefore entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants herein for all the reliefs sought.   
From the evidence adduced I find as a fact that the defendants have trespassed onto the plaintiff’s land. Having so found the plaintiff is entitled to damages. It is trite knowledge that general damages flow from the breach of contract or tort.  
In Attorney-General v. Faroe Atlantic Co. Ltd [2005-2006] SCGLR 271 at 290, the Supreme Court, per Dr. Seth Twum JSC stated: 
  “….a claim for damages for breach of contract will entitle the plaintiff to nominal damages only unless the plaintiff gives particulars of special damage. No particulars of general damages are ever ordered…General damages are such as the law will presume to be natural or probable consequence of the 
11  
defendant’s act. They arise by inference of the law and need not therefore be proved by evidence.  
As the Supreme Court per Twum JSC held in Delmas Agency Ghana Ltd. Vrs. Food Distributors International Ltd. [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 748, holding (3): 
 “General damages is such as the law will presume to be the natural or     probable consequences of the defendant’s act. It arises by inference of law and therefore need not to proved by evidence. The law implies general damage in every infringement of an absolute right. The catch is that only nominal damages are awarded. Where the plaintiff has suffered a properly quantifiable loss, he must plead specifically his loss and prove it strictly. If he does not, he is not entitled to anything unless general damages as are also appropriate.”     
I have evaluated the totality of the evidence led, the facts and circumstances of this case and consider GH¢5,000.00 as adequate as general damages. I therefore award GH¢5,000.00 as general damages to the plaintiff against the defendants herein. 
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¢5,000.00  to the plaintiff  against the defendant herein.   
 (SGD.) 
 GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA 
 (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)   
Counsel:                                                                                   
1. Mr. Kweku Gyimah Kye for Plaintiff. 
2. Mr. Kofi Nti for Defendants.                            