Edwin Poku, a Kumasi based legal practitioner, has accused the Lands Commission (LC) for allegedly altering documents in favour of his opponents in a law suit.
According to him, a copy Title Deeds covering Plot No. 83, Block 20, Section 5036 (OTA Layout) located at Adum-Kumasi, in the Ashanti region, is awash with cancellations and deletions of critical information.
He told the General Jurisdiction 8 of the Kumasi High Court, presided over by William Osei-Kuffour, last week, April 26, 2024 that the alleged cancellations had been replaced with choice words.
Mr Poku said the act was nothing but an attempt to overreach him by the plaintiffs – Yvonne Appiah Poku, Ida Gisela Osei, Eleanor Opoku and Hanetta Hayford.
The property in dispute was acquired by the defendant’s late father, Francis Kojo Poku, popularly known as Poku Transport, from the Ghana Property Limited in 1972.
The plaintiffs, who are first cousins of the defendant, claimed to have also acquired the said property, following the failure on the part of Mr. Poku to redeem it after the expiration of his father’s lease, somewhere in 2005.
A claim, the defendant has profusely and vehemently denied, arguing that the plaintiffs alleged acquisition of the property was unlawful.
The defendant, while cross-examining a witness of the plaintiffs, Augustine Obeng Gyasi of the Lands Commission, indicated that these cancellations and deletions had rendered the documents unreliable.
He pointed out to the court that a word like the “government”, which was originally captured in the document, has been cancelled and replaced with the ‘Chief Commissioner.’
The witness, Augustine Obeng Gyasi, confirmed the allegation of the cancellations on the face of the Exhibits, but denied any responsibility.
Furthermore, the alleged certified copy of the official document retrieved from the Lands Commission archive had the entire section 3 of Exhibit B2 deleted.
Although the witness claimed he has no knowledge of those behind the cancellations, he insisted that the exhibits are the certified true copy of the original and explained that the cancellations and deletions were not deliberate, but mere corrections.
And again, giving the period, in which the title deeds were prepared, the corrections were effected to put the documents in a proper context.
Augustine said, “for instance, when you look at the transaction at the third paragraph and I read; Chief Commissioner of Ashanti acting for and on behalf of the government for Ashanti (hereinafter called the government).”
So my answer is that when you take the document from the context you will realise that ‘the government’ should have been Chief Commissioner not ‘the government’. I’m certain that was the reason for the cancellation for the government in place of the Chief Commissioner.”
Augustine Gyasi Obeng again contended that he was not even born nor employed as at the time the Lands Commission registered the transaction between late Francis Kojo Poku and Ghana Property Limited, in the year 1972.
The defendant was conducting the cross examination himself, as his counsel was indisposed.
The court also shot down the defendant application for the original documents of the property, as well as the file in respect of same to be tendered.
Plaintiffs’ reliefs
In the suit which started in July 28, 2021, the plaintiffs, Yvonne Appiah Poku and others are seeking four reliefs from the court in the property in dispute.
They want a declaration by the court that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property described as plot Plot No. 83, Block 20 and Section 503 (OTA).
They want recovery of possession, and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant either by himself, assigns or all manner of persons to quit enjoyment of the said property. Finally, any appropriate reliefs in the circumstances of the case.
Defendant’ statement
“In their 17 points of statement of claim, the plaintiffs averted that in the year 1992, the Government of Ghana (GoG) leased the aforementioned plot of land to Mr. Francis Kojo Poku, for a period of 15 years, from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 2005.
“According to them, upon expiry of the lease, neither the then leasehold nor any of his lawful representatives applied for the renewal of the said lease.
“In respect of that, the Golden Stool applied for the lease of the property and same was granted in July 1, 2014 for a period of 50 years.
“And on January 21, 2015 the Golden Stool sub-leased the property in question to the plaintiffs for valuable consideration and same has been registered with the Lands Commission, for which they have obtained land title of the property in that regard.
“The plaintiffs claimed they are the registered title owners of the property, hence they are entitled to enjoy any benefit of their possession without any hindrance, but that had not been the case.
“They said the defendant has prevented occupants of the property in dispute from paying them rents, as well as barring them (plaintiffs) from having access to the property.
“According to the plaintiffs, all efforts to take possession of the land has failed and, therefore, want the court to intervene.”
Defendant’s statement
Mr Poku, however, denied the plaintiff’s’ claim that after the expiration of the lease, the lawful representatives of lessee failed to renewed same, especially when that process was stalled by a restructuring programme triggered by the Lands Commission and the Asantehene Lands Secretariat.
The defendant further stated that the delay or omission to apply for renewal of the lease did not automatically bring the relationship of the lessee and lessor, GoG and his late father’s estate to a dead end. He said there was an intention to renew the lease by the legal representatives of the deceased.
Furthermore, he refused the claim that the Lands Commission registered the transaction between GoG with Golden Stool, adding that although it is required by law that the LC ought to have accorded the deceased’s lawful representatives the right to justice, it did not.
“Similarly, the plaintiffs claim that the registration of the lease was granted in the interest of the Golden Stool is also vitiated on the grounds of illegality, unreasonableness and irrationality, particularly when the LC ignored the defendant’s caveats and to purportedly granting lease to the Golden Stool”, he contended.
He also denied the assertion that the plaintiffs are owners of the property and entitled to enjoy any benefit or rents from its occupants. The case has been adjourned to July 3 and 4, 2024 at 11:30 am
