Accusations of document tampering, have thrown the Land Commission (LC) into the spotlight, as a legal battle unfolds over Plot No. 83, Block 20, Section 5036 (OTA Layout) situated in Adum- Kumasi, Ashanti Region.
Lawyer Edwin Poku, embroiled in a lawsuit filed by Yvonne Appiah Poku, Ida Gisela Osei, Eleanor Opoku, and Hanetta Hayford, alleged before General Jurisdiction 8 of the Kumasi High Court, presided over by Justice William Osei-Kuffour, that title deeds concerning the disputed plot have undergone unauthorized alterations.
According to Lawyer Poku, representing his late father Francis Kojo Poku’s estate, the documents presented by a Lands Commission staff member as evidence in court contain conspicuous modifications.
These alterations purportedly involve the replacement and cancellation of various sections, casting doubt on the authenticity and reliability of the titles.
During cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witness, Augustine Obeng Gyasi from the Lands Commission, Poku, highlighted discrepancies such as the substitution of “the government” with “the Chief Commissioner,” and the deletion of entire sections, notably section 3 of Exhibit B2.
Lawyer Poku, contends that these alterations are a deliberate ploy by the plaintiffs and the Lands Commission to undermine his claim to the property.
However, Gyasi, while acknowledging the presence of cancellations on the documents, denied responsibility for the changes, asserting that the copies provided, were sourced directly from the LC’s archives.
The case puts the spotlight firmly on the Land Commission’s procedures and accountability in managing land records, underscoring the complexity and contentious nature of land disputes in the country, where issues of documentation integrity can significantly impact legal outcomes.
The defendant told the court on Friday, April 26, 2024, that the disputed property was acquired by his late father Francis Kojo Poku, popularly known as Poku Transport, from Ghana Property Limited.
However, Mr Poku’s challenge with the duplicated documents covering the said property that have been tendered in evidence by a staff of the LC, was that the title deeds cannot be reliable.
The court heard, when the defendant was crossing examining the plaintiffs’ witness, Augustine Obeng Gyasi of the Lands Commission, that the entire documents had been tainted with alterations, pointing to the wording “the government” being cancelled and replaced with the Chief Commissioner.
According to the defendant, the cancellations in what was supposed to be a certified copy of the official document are so obvious that the entire section 3 of Exhibit B2, has been deleted.
It is the belief of the defendant that the alterations on the documents are attempts by the plaintiffs and the Lands Commission to outwit him.
The witness admitted to the cancellations on the face of the documents, however, explained that he was not responsible for those cancellations and replacements of words but disagreed that the title deeds had been altered.
Augustine said the documents being referred to by the defendant are copies of the original obtained from the Land Commission’s archive.
He absorbed himself from any wrong doing, and went ahead to offer his opinion on the subject matter to the court that “My lord, respectively I have seen certain cancellations being replaced on the document. However, I believe that with the passage of time, certain corrections were made to the document to suit the content of the document.
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 realize 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.”
Although, the witness claimed he does not know the people responsible for the cancellation, but also said the deletion on page 3 of Exhibit B4, was not deliberate.
“My lord, it has not deliberately been deleted. These are copies we made from the original documents. And looking at the year this document was made…, you could see there omissions of certain statements on the document, due to the passage of time.”
Augustine Gyasi Obeng, claimed he was not born nor employed by the time the Lands Commission registered the transaction between late Francis Kojo Poku and Ghana Property Limited in 1972.
It was his testimony that he joined the LC somewhere in 2015, giving the space and time he has been working with the commission to nine years.
The court overruled the defendant’s application for the tendering of the original documents as well as the file in respect of the property in question.
Plaintiffs’ reliefs
In the suit that started in July 28, 2021, the plaintiffs, Yvonne Appiah Poku, and others seeking four reliefs from the court in connection to the property described above.
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 quiet enjoyment of the said property.
Finally, any appropriate reliefs in the circumstances of the case.
Plaintiffs’ statement of claims
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 rent as well as barring them (plaintiffs) from having access to the property.
According to the plaintiffs, all efforts to take possession of the land have failed and therefore want the court to intervene.
Defendant’s statement
Mr Poku, has also denied the plaintiffs’ claim that after the expiration of the lease, the lawful representatives of the lessee failed to renew 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 between 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 required by law that the LC ought to have accorded the deceased 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 purportedly granted the lease to the Golden Stool.
He also denied the assertion that the plaintiffs are owners of the property and entitled to enjoy any benefit or rents from its occupants.
Furthermore, he has made payments to the administrators of the deceased’s estate in respect of the land.
In his counterclaim, the defendant request among other things that the land title certificate issued in favour of the plaintiffs should be declared null and void.
The case has been adjourned to July 3 and 4, 2024 at 11:30 am each day
