Gbane: District Court quashes attempts to reclaim land leased by late chief to ATC Tower Ghana

The Bolgatanga District Court has dismissed a case brought before it by Tiroug Zumah Yaro, a former secretary to the Chief of Gbane in the Talensi District, against John Bawa Batrim, an opinion leader of the community.

The court, presided over by His Worship Mawukoenya Nutekpor, after seven months of hearing the matter, declared that the plaintiff, Tiroug Zumah Yaro, had failed to establish the existence of facts in the claims he made against the defendant before the court.

According to the court, the plaintiff also acted in bad faith by choosing to bring legal action to nullify an agreement that was entered into 11 years ago, when he had the opportunity to challenge the agreement shortly after it came into force.

Background:

Tiroug Zumah Yaro, a former secretary to the late Chief of Gbane, Naab Puboataba Nabil, filed a suit at the District Court in Bolgatanga on November 28, 2023, seeking the court to, among other reliefs, nullify or set aside an agreement that was signed on May 21, 2013, between the Gban Skin, acting by the late Chief of Gbane, and ATC Tower (Ghana) Limited.

The agreement pertained to the acquisition of a piece of land in the Gbane community by ATC Tower Ghana Limited for the purposes of housing their telecommunications transmission equipment, tower, and standby generator.

According to him, his reason for wanting the 11-year-old lease agreement nullified is because his name has appeared on the agreement as a witness, though he has no knowledge of the said agreement.

Yaro further claimed that the defendant in the case, John Bawa, perpetrated fraud, forgery, and impersonation by executing the leasehold agreement by thumbprinting the agreement in the name of the plaintiff.

He also argued that the defendant posed as an interpreter in a statutory declaration document, which forms part of the lease agreement, when the defendant can neither read nor write.

In his defense, John Bawa told the court that Tiroug Yaro Zumah was the secretary to the late chief of Gbane and was very much in the know of all the discussions and meetings that were held between the parties to the agreement prior to the date of signing.

He stressed, through his lawyer, Simon Alangde Asabo, that Yaro participated in a meeting convened by the late Chief of Gbane, Naab Puboataba Nabil, to discuss the request of ATC Tower Ghana Limited for a piece of land to house their transmission equipment, tower, and standby generator.

The defendant further told the court that the plaintiff told the late Chief that he (the plaintiff) would be traveling to Bawku and would therefore be unavailable for subsequent discussions and signing of the agreement, and therefore, the defendant could thumbprint for him to facilitate the process to get the transmission equipment mounted so that the community could connect to the telecommunications network.

John Bawa indicated to the court that the contents of the agreement were read out to him in the English language by the officials of ATC Tower Ghana Limited, which he understood and translated to the late Chief and Tindana, even though he cannot write or read in English. Though he was invited by the Bolgatanga Divisional Police Command upon a complaint by the plaintiff, the police could not prosecute him because they found no case of fraud; the case was dropped.

District Court’s determination and decision:

His Worship Mawukoenya Nutekpor, in determining the matter, said a lease agreement is duly executed by the grantor or lessor and the grantee or lessee by signing or thumbprinting the lease in the presence of at least one witness. Any of the parties to a lease can apply to the court for a modification or nullification on the grounds of a mistake, fraud, illegality, duress, misrepresentation, and undue influence.

The court stated that a non-party or stranger to the agreement has no capacity to challenge the validity of the agreement and can therefore not seek for it to be nullified.

“In the instant case, the parties herein are not parties to the agreement dated May 21, 2013. The parties to the agreement are not parties to the instant action before the court. Indeed, the plaintiff admitted in evidence that the parties are not before the court, or he does not know them, and that the agreement should be annulled because he did not witness it,” the court said.

The June 21, 2024, judgment also indicated that “In the agreement, there is an oath of proof, which showed that the agreement was duly executed between the Gban Skin, acting by the late Naab Puboataba Nabil (Zelsom Nakalad), Chief of Gbane, and ATC Tower (Ghana) Limited.

This oath of proof was not signed by the plaintiff as a witness, and so even if the plaintiff’s name is taken out as a witness, it will not affect the validity of the agreement. The law is that every conveyance or lease shall be executed in the presence of at least one witness.”

Contrary to claims by Tiroug Yaro Zumah that he did not authorize John Bawa to thumbprint the agreement as a witness on his behalf, the court found, as a fact from evidence on record, that the plaintiff was present at a meeting prior to the signing of the agreement and had indeed instructed the defendant to thumbprint on his behalf. It emerged that both of them rode on one motorbike to the chief’s palace to attend that meeting.

While entirely dismissing the matter before it, the court said Tiroug Yaro Zumah, who claimed to be a secretary to the late Chief of Gbane from 2013 to 2016, failed to demonstrate to the court that he did not know about the agreement, which was signed over ten years ago, and could have therefore raised the issue during the lifetime of the late chief.

“It can therefore be concluded that the plaintiff, as a secretary, knew about the existence of the agreement and, if he had not authorized or instructed the defendant to thumbprint for him, he would have raised issues during the lifetime of the late chief from 2013 to 2016 and not waited till more than ten years before raising the issue. This court is of the opinion that the plaintiff’s action is an afterthought and was brought in bad faith,” the court said.