Boham v Tettey (J4/05/2025) [2025] GHASC 97 (17 December 2025)

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT ACCRA - A.D. 2025 CORAM: LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC (PRESIDING) ASIEDU JSC DARKO ASARE JSC DZAMEFE JSC ADJEI JSC CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/05/2025 17TH DECEMBER, 2025 YOOFI BOHAM …… DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT VRS MUSTAPHA ADJIN TETTEY …… PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 2 LOVELACE-JOHNSON JSC:- The designation of the parties at the High Court will be maintained in this appeal. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for the following reliefs (a) Declaration of title to all that piece of land being and lying at Abosso Okai near Mataheko in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana and bounded on the North East by Victor Nettey’s land measuring 60 feet more or less, on the North West by Victoria Elemo Adade vor’s land measuring 116 feet more or less, on the South West by a proposed road measuring 60 feet more or less, on the South East by a proposed road measuring 110 feet more or less and covering an approximate area of 0.16 acres which said piece of land is more particularly delineated on the plan which shows the relevant measurements. (b) Recovery of possession of the said parcel of land (c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant whether by himself, his agents, servants workmen, assigns or anybody however described who drives authority from defendant from interfering with plaintiff’s use of the said land. (d) General damages for trespass (e) Cost The defendant denied this claim and further counterclaimed for declaration of title to the land claimed by the plaintiff, damages for trespass, recovery of possession of any portion 3 of the land entered upon by the plaintiff, an order for plaintiff to remove all offending structures on the land and perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, his agents, and assigns from ever entering the land At the end of the hearing the trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff. The Defendant appealed against the said judgment. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial High Court. Still dissatisfied, the defendant has launched the present appeal on the following ground: a. The judgment is against the weight of evidence The defendant stated that other grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of the record of appeal. No such were filed. The relief sought is “that the whole judgment be set aside and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant/Appellant” The present appeal will therefore be considered on the omnibus ground earlier stated. This court has stated ad nauseum that notwithstanding the duty of an appellate court to go through the entire record to determine if the findings and conclusions in the judgment on appeal are borne out by all the evidence led, it is the appellant appealing on this ground who has to pinpoint any alleged lapses in the said judgment which will trigger this process. The appellate court on its own does not embark on a fishing expedition, so to speak, looking for reasons to set a judgment aside. See the case of Republic vs. Conduah ex parte Aaba (substituted by Asmah) [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1032 and a host of other cases which discuss this duty on an appellant in such circumstances. 4 What are these lapses complained of by the defendant? Has he been able to satisfy this court that, these lapses, if there are indeed any such, would , if cured, change the conclusion or judgment given against him in this matter and make him the successful party? The summary of the defendant’s complaints in this regard as gleaned from his somewhat haphazard statement of case are as follows i) The trial court failed to call a witness from the Land Title Registry Division and the Regional Director of Survey and Mapping Division of The Lands Commission before concluding that the Land Title certificate of the defendant was invalid raises ‘serious p rocedural and evidentiary concerns’ and so the refusal of the Court of Appeal to subpoena officers from these Divisions amounts to a serious omission which omission denied the court an opportunity to interrogate the authenticity of the certificate and also denied the defendant the opportunity to rebut the allegation of fraud and irregularity of the said certificate. ii) The defendant also complains that the trial court on 19th February 2019 had ruled that a motion for a supplemental witness statement had been struck out as invalid upon the basis of Practice Direction which had no statutory backing. This according to the defendant’s counsel can be viewed as a miscarriage of justice iii) The trial court failed to summon the surveyor who prepared the composite plan to testify and make himself available for cross examination and thus ‘compromised the integrity of the process’, an act counsel describes as a ‘fundamental procedural error’. Counsel submits that the court of appeal’s failure to comment on this infraction impacted the fairness and transparency of the proceedings. 5 iv) There is also a complaint about the disparities in the signature of the plaintiff in his indenture of 1990 and his witness statement of 2017 and that of his witness on a payment receipt and the latter’s witness statement. It is submitted by counsel that th ese raise the possibility of forgery and fraudulent conduct and could seriously undermine the plaintiff’s credibility and the integrity of the whole case. v) It is also contended that while the plaintiff stated in his address at the Court of Appeal that publication of defendant’s land title was done on 1 st January 1997, it was actually done on 18th January as per exhibit 10. It is submitted that this was a contradiction in the plaintiff’s case and yet the court relied heavily on this date to discredit the defendant’s evidence. The affirmation of this finding by the Court of Appeal, it is submitted, shows a failure of due diligence on that court’s part because it took the plaintiff’s unsupported assertion at face value without taking into account critical details which could have ‘significantly impacted’ its conclusion. This was a serious error of jud gment on the part of the Court of Appeal which has resulted in an ‘inaccurate and unjust conclusion’ regarding the defendant’s Land Title Certificate, his counsel submits. The Plaintiff’s answer to all the submissions by the defendant is simple. It is contended that all the issues raised are not part of the evidence on record and since the omnibus ground of appeal relates to evidence on record, then they are not relevant or appropriate for arguing such under this ground of appeal. It is submitted that ‘the defendant instead catalogued pieces of evidence he intended to call but failed to do so’. The above submission, respectfully is incorrect. Any fact, document or testimony admitted in court forms part of the evidence on record so a newspaper publication, a failure to have a witness cross examined, or the wrong evaluation of any testimony can be raised under the 6 omnibus ground as a lapse whose cure can lead to a different conclusion in the case. To accept the very limited scope of the omnibus ground proffered by counsel for the plaintiff will lead to injustice The question to be answered at this stage is whether the alleged lapses are such as will change the judgment of the Court of Appeal should they be found proven. It is to be borne in mind that not all proven lapses, even if corrected will affect the outcome of an appeal. One must also bear in mind this court’s admonition to be slow to interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by a trial court and confirmed by a first appellate court unless these findings are clearly at variance with the evidence on record or contrary to law. See the case of Sylvia Gregory vs. Nana Kwesi Tandoh IV [2010] SCGLR 971 In sum, the lapses the defendant complains of, shorn of all the many submissions are four and relate to the failure of the trial court to call certain officials from the Lands Commission to testify, the striking out of his supplemental witness statement, the failure of the Surveyor to testify and the dependence on the wrong publication date of a newspaper. It is alleged that the Court of Appeal’s judgment became tainted by the same complaints through its affirmation of the judgment of the High Court. What did the court of appeal say on these issues in its judgment? The defendants first additional ground of appeal before the Court of Appeal related to the failure of the trial court to subpoena the Regional Director of survey and Mapping at the Land’s Commission. This is what the first appellate court stated at page 204 of the record of appeal [ROA] 7 “……we find it necessary to touch on those grounds of appeal without plentiful words in disposing of them………..The issuance of a Land Title certificate is premised on the fact that an applicant submitted a foundational document being an indenture or any docu ment recognised under law by the Lands Commission for registration. From the evidence, the appellant had none to submit before the Lands Commission. Therefore the finding by the trial Judge at page 147 of the record of appeal that there was no document registered or unregistered purporting to convey the land to the appellant……for which reason the title certificate had no credibility but tainted cannot be impeached….…The non invitation extended to the Regional Surveyor of the Survey and Mapping Division under that circumstances did not occasion any injustice to the appellant” We agree with the conclusion that this lapse, if it can be called such, did not occasion any injustice to the defendant. This is because, the evidence of this witness could not have cured the absence of a document which should have been a basis for the defendant’s land tile certificate, secondly he had a counterclaim which he had to prove and win on its merits by producing relevant evidence. He was at liberty to call witnesses he felt needed to succeed on his counterclaim. The court and plaintiff were not under any duty to call witnesses to help make his case. Nothing stopped him from subpoenaing the surveyor who drew up a composite plan to come and testify in court in support of his case. The trial court’s statement that there was clearly no dispute as to the identity of the land the subject matter of dispute was justified in the light of paragraph 3 of plaintiffs statement of claim and Paragraph 1(a) of the Defendants Counterclaim which show that the parties were disputing over the same land. “Plaintiff’s Paragraph 3 That Plaintiff says that he is the owner of a piece of land being and lying at Abossay Okai near Mataheko in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana and 8 bounded on the North East by Victor Nettey’s land measuring 60 feet more or less, on the North West by Victoria Elemo Adadevor’s land measuring 116 feet more or less, on the South West by a proposed road measuring 60 feet more or less, on the South East by a proposed measuring 110 feet more or less and covering an approximate area of 0.16 acres which said piece of land is more particularly delineated on the plan which shows the relevant measurements. Defendant’s Paragraph 1(a) Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land described in schedule to statement of claim” The court in its discretion chose not to call the surveyor to tender his report, which, in any case, the court was not bound by. As stated earlier, nothing stopped defendant from calling this officer of the Lands Commission as a witness. It is for these reasons that we affirm the finding of the court of appeal that the defendant suffered no miscarriage of justice in respect of these inactions on the part of the trial court. The court cannot comprehend the submissions by counsel for the defendant about his supplementary witness statement which was allegedly struck out by the High Court as invalid. Counsel refers this court to a ruling by that court at page 61 of the ROA whose subject matter is rather a refusal for a composite plan to be drawn. The ruling in question states as follows: “it is observed that on the Pre -Trial Check List of Defendant, a request has been made for an order for composite plan to be drawn. Looking at the nature of the reliefs sought and the counterclaim of Defendant, it is clear to me that 9 the Parties are talking about the same piece of land. I will therefore turn down that request”. The record shows that this supplementary statement was struck out, rightly, because it was filed without leave. If the defendant was minded so to do, he could have sought leave to have that statement form part of the record. In any case this was not a grou nd of appeal raised before the Court of Appeal. Regarding the issue of the alleged publication of the required notice on a public holiday, the Court of Appeal did indeed state that the publication was done on 1 st January 1997, a confirmation of the position taken by the high court in its judgment. A careful study of Exhibit 10 shows that the publication was done on Saturday, January 18 1997. Clearly then both the High Court and Court of Appeal were mistaken about this date. The Court of Appeal’s statement that ‘As to how 1st January being a public holiday there was any newspaper in circulation….’ is not borne out by the record. The defendant’s complaint in this regard has merit and is upheld. Does this proven la pse affect the judgment of the Court of Appeal? Will correction of the date of the publication lead to judgment being given for the defendant on his counterclaim? It is our considered opinion that it will not, for the simple reason that, the record shows that the publication was done years after the defendant had acquired a Land Title Certificate! Exhibit 9, the land Title certificate was issued on 8 th January 1992. The publication which was required by law to be done before its issuance for the purpose of giving notice to the world so that any affected party could file a caveat, was done on 18 th January 1997, about five years thereafter! So long as the publication was done after the issue of the certificate, 10 the Court of Appeal was right in its affirmation of the High Court’s finding that exhibit 9 was not genuine. At the very least, it was compromised and could not carry any weight. In conclusion, in relation to the defendant’s complaints, with the exception of that relating to the date of publication earlier discussed, which we have found does not affect the conclusion of the Court of Appeal, we are satisfied that the standard laid d own in In Re Republic v Conduah supra and similar cases, has not been met. In other words, the defendant has NOT been able to satisfy this court that certain pieces of evidence had been wrongly applied against him or/and incorrectly or improperly applied by the court. A quick evaluation of the evidence led by the defendant in support of his counterclaim as against that led by the plaintiff in support of his claim at the trial justifies the affirmation by the Court of Appeal of the findings by the High Court. The record shows that the plaintiff led credible evidence about how he acquired the land from on Kwaku Okyere in 1990 who had acquired it from E A B Brock in 1989, and whose title was registered at the Land Title Registry. An indenture was executed on the transaction and tendered in court as exhibit B. The appearance of the name of one John Kwame Donkor was sufficiently explained away, to the satisfaction of the trial court by the plaintiff and did not appear to remove from his case. On the other hand, defendant pleaded that he acquired the land in 1984 from one Yartey Ansah who had also acquired it from one “Nathaniel Nii Brock on behalf of his father namely E. A. B. Brock the owner of the land” in 1984. See paragraph 2 of the Statement of Defence However during his cross examination in court, he said he got the land from E. A. B. Brock. Crucially, the defendant was unable to tender any lease of the land to him from Yartey Ansah or the Brocks. It was implied in one of his exhibits, a letter from his counsel, exhibit 6, that an indenture was executed between him and Yartey Ansah Anan but it could not be 11 traced at the Lands Department. Exhibit C, the search report does not mention him as having acquired this land from Yartey Ansah or anybody. His name does not appear on it. He also failed to adduce any similar evidence acceptable under the evidence Act an d the law relating to his acquisition of the land in dispute. Without such evidence his counterclaim crumbled because his claim of title had no basis. It could not be resurrected by his Land title certificate which the trial court found was not genuine, a finding affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The absence of the re quired evidence proving his root of title sounded the death knell of his case. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is definitely supported by the evidence on record In conclusion we find no merit in this appeal and d ismiss it. The judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 15th June 2023 is hereby affirmed. (SGD.) A. LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) (JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT) (SGD.) S. K. A. ASIEDU (JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT) 12 (SGD.) Y. DARKO ASARE (JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT) (SGD.) S. DZAMEFE (JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT) CONCURRING OPINION ADJEI JSC:- I have had the advantage of reading in draft the lead opinion of my sister and the president of the panel, Lovelace -Johnson (Ms.), JSC to affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal. I agree with the reasons and the conclusion reached. I, however, wish to provide this opinion in support of the lead judgment. The Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent hereinafter called the Plaintiff) issued a writ against the Defendant/Appellant/Appellant (hereinafter called the Defendant) in the High Court for a declaration of title to a parcel of land at Abosso Okai near Matehoko in Accra, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction, General damages, and costs. The Defendant filed his statement of defence and counterclaimed against the Plaintiff for the same reliefs in respect of the same land. The main dispute before the High Court for determination was which of the two parties is the owner of the disputed plot. The Plaintiff 13 claimed his root of title through one Kwaku Okyere in 1990, who executed an indenture and was duly registered at the Lands Commission after a search confirmed that he was the owner of the plot. The Defendant, on the other hand, averred that he purchased the land from one Yartey Ansah Annan in 1984, who had also purchased it from Nathaniel Nii Bruce JN of Osu on behalf of his father, by name E.A.B. Brock. The Defendant also averred that he has a Land Title Certificate issued to him by the Lands Commission in 1992, following thorough investigations by the Commission. On 26th January, 2021, the High Court, after having heard the parties, granted all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff, and dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim as unproven. The Defendant, dissatisfied with the High Court's decision, filed an appeal against it on 7th May, 2021, to the Court of Appeal, praying for the reversal of the judgment and for the Court to enter judgment in his favor. The original notice of appeal contained the omnibus grounds of appeal only, and the Defendant sought leave from the Court of Appeal to file additional grounds of Appeal, which was granted on 16th May, 2023. The additional grounds of appeal were as follows: “(1) The learned trial Judge’s failure to subpoena the Regional Director of Survey and Mapping Division of the Lands Commission deprived the Court the opportunity to explain the technical information and explanation of any perceived irregularities which influenced the learned trial judge’s conclusion that the defendant/ appellant’s land title certificate was fraudulently obtained. (2)The learned Trial Judge having on the 8th day of March, 2018 ordered the Regional Surveyor of the Survey and Mapping Division of the Lands Commission to draw up a composite plan of the disputed lands, erred when he failed to subpoena him to court to tender the composite plan in evidence. 14 (3) The learned trial judge failed to examine critically the patent disparities in the signatures of the plaintiff in his indenture dated 29th July, 1990 and his witness statement of 25th July, 2017. “Disparities in the signature of the Plaintiff (a) on the indenture dated 29th July, 1990 as compared with his signature on his witness statement. Signature of Plaintiff’s Witness Statement Samuel Adjei on payment receipt as compared with Witness Statement dated 25th July, 2017.” The Court of Appeal granted leave to the Defendant to file his written submission out of time on 8th November, 2022, and he filed the same on 14th November, 2022. The Plaintiff also filed his written submission in answer on 30th November, 2022. The Court o f Appeal, in its unanimous judgment delivered on 15th June, 2023, discussed all the grounds of appeal together with the written submissions of the respective parties and dismissed the entire appeal as unmeritorious. The Defendant, dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal's unanimous decision, filed a notice of appeal against it on 23rd June, 2023. The notice of appeal contains only the omnibus ground of appeal; thus, the judgment is against the weight of evidence. The De fendant is inviting this Court to evaluate the entire evidence on record, correct all factual errors and legal matters which require factual evidence to resolve them, apply the applicable burden of proof, and come to an appropriate conclusion. The Appellan t, who alleges that a judgment is against the weight of evidence on record, is required to direct the appellate court to the alleged errors or lapses contained in the impugned judgment for the errors or the lapses to be corrected in accordance with the law . Notwithstanding that the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate the errors complained of to the appellate court, the court equally has the right to point out and discuss factual errors or lapses and legal matters that require facts to resolve them whe n they are indeed against the weight of the evidence on 15 record and require correction, and the correction is wholly unanswerable. However, where the lapses or the errors are answerable, it would be desirable for the appellate court to allow the parties to submit on the issue. The Defendant, who has appealed to this Court and asserting that the judgment is against the weight of evidence, did not quote a single case to support his appeal; however, the Plaintiff discussed cases on the subject matter, including Tuakwa v Bosom [2001 -2002] SCGLR 61, In Re Republic v Conduah; Ex parte Aaba (Substituted by Asmah [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1032, and Akuffo Addo v Catherine [1992] 1 GLR 377, SC. The Defendant alleges that the Court of Appeal relied mainly on documents tendered by the Plaintiff, and that he suffered as a result of the loss of his papers on the land, which were reported to the Executive Secretary of the Lands Commission and could no t be recovered. The exhibit ’6” is the letter written by the Defendant to the Executive Secretary of the Lands Commission, and the relevant part of it is paragraphs 2-4, which provide as follows: “It would appear that the indenture of conveyance was executed by my client, and cannot also be traced at the Lands Commission. Of late another Mr. Brock has purported to dispose of this same land to somebody else but the matter is being resolved. This letter is to ask you most humbly to instruct that no one else is allowed to register a document affecting this land in the meantime.” The letter rather exposes the Defendant who claimed to have title deeds covering the disputed land. He was not sure whether an indenture had been executed in respect of the land, and stated that it appeared to him that one had been executed but could not be traced. The Defendant could not conduct a search to satisfy himself that an indenture had been prepared for the land. A search certificate tendered into evidence and admitted without an 16 objection traces the root of title to the land and all registered interests affecting it. The registered interests on the land from 1957 to date do not mention the Defendant and his grantor, and they have not acquired any interest in the land for his grantor to transfer same to him. From the search certificate, a conveyance dated 30/11/1957 from Mary A. Allotey to Edmund Alphonso Banor Brock. A conveyance dated 09/03/1989 from Edmund Alphonso Banor Brock to Kwaku Okyere. A conveyance dated 29/07/1990 from Kwaku Okyere to Mustapha Adjin -Tettey. A conveyance dated 21/08/2004 from Mustapha Adjin -Tettey to John Kwame Donkor. The root of the title excludes both the Defendant and his grantor, and his assertion that it appeared to him that he had a conveyance in respect of the land is false. The legal effect of the search remains unchanged, even though it was conducted in 2018, when the prevailing law was the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL 152). Section 56 (1) and (3) of the repealed Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDCL 152), which is on the legal effect of a search certificate, provides thus: “(1) A person seeking information concerning a parcel of land or an interest in land registered under this Act or matters incidental to the parcel or the interest may apply to the Land Registrar to inspect a register, a sheet of the registry map on an instrument or a plan filed in the Registry and containing the information on the days and during the hours and subject to the conditions that may be prescribed. (3)A person referred to in subsection (1) may apply in the prescribed form to the land registrar to make an official search in the land register or the registry map and the land registrar shall issue to the applicant a certificate of the result of the sear ch, which shall be presumed to be conclusive of the matters stated in the certificate.” The above provision has been reproduced verbatim under section 222 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036). It provides thus: 17 “(1) A person seeking information concerning land may apply to the Lands Commission to conduct a search in the records of the Lands Commission and the Lands Commission shall, within fourteen days after the payment of the prescribed fees, issue to the applicant a report of the search. (2) A search report shall be in the manner specified in Form 9 of the Third Schedule, and the report shall be presumed to be conclusive of the matters stated in the Form.” The information on the search report shall be presumed to be conclusive on the matters stated therein, and there being no contrary evidence from the Defendant to rebut it, it is conclusively presumed that the land was granted by the Plaintiff’s grantor to the Plaintiff. We further find and hold that the Defendant did not register any conveyance in respect of the land in dispute. Both the trial High Court and the Court of Appeal were correct in holding that ownership of the plot is vested in the Plaintiff, as there is copious evidence on record to prove same. This Court, in its previous decision in the case of Suleman Suberu (suing per his lawful attorney), Amina Suberu v Mrs Esi Davidson and Another, suit No. J4/28/2021, held that registration under both the Land Title Registration Law, 1986, PNDCL 152, as repealed by the Land Act, 2020, Act 1036, provides that registration provides conclusive evidence, while a search result is only an administrative response to an enquiry with no binding effect. The Court held thus: “Registrations of title under Land Title Registration Law 1986, PNDCL 152 (now repealed by the Land Act 2020, Act 1036, with all acts done thereunder saved by section 282 of Act 1036) provides conclusive evidence of interest in land, while a search result i s only an administrative response to an enquiry with no binding effect.” 18 The above ratio is not the position of the law, and we hereby depart from it under Article 129(3) of the Constitution of Ghana, 1992. We hold that the legal effect of a search is that the information contained in it is presumed to be conclusive of same, an d the Defendant has failed to prove that he once upon a time acquired any interest in the land and registered same with the Lands Commission. The Plaintiff explained the basis for the name of his grantee, John Kwame Donkor , appearing on the search, which was not controverted. He sold the land to John Kwame Donkor, who could not pay before his death, and his family gave back the land to the Plaintiff. At common law, a contract of sale can be varied by itself, and where a sale is made and the buyer fails to pay for the land, the vendor may sue to recover the purchase price, to restore the property, or to have the property sold. The explanation offered by the Plaintiff is justified, and as an equitable owner of the land, he can sue in his own name. The Defendant further alleged that the trial Court denied him the right to subpoena the Lands Commission to testify to solicit information on the allegations of fraud and irregularities relating to the Plaintiff’s signature on the lease and his witness statement, which were at variance. The accusations against the trial High Court Judge are unfair, as it is the duty of a party to conduct their case in accordance with the law. There is no evidence on record that the Defendant filed a subpoena to compel the attendance of the Lands Commission, which the Court did not enforce. The court also did not deem it essential to call the Lands Commission as an expert or court witness, and the duty was on the Defendant to contact the Lands Commission and subpoena them, and he cannot attribute his failure to the court. The allegations lack merit and are dismissed. 19 The issue regarding the composite plan is without merit, as the trial High Court Judge found that there is no dispute as to the identity of the land, and he was under no obligation to make an order he considered irrelevant. The Defendant complains about a supplementary witness statement which the trial High Court Judge struck out. Still, his discussions on the subject matter refer to the composite plan indicated on his Pre -Trial Checklist, which the Judge struck out. All the submissions on the subject matter are misplaced and same is dismissed as without merit. The Defendant, who has no lease and claims to have a land title certificate, is impossible. It is a trite learning that, apart from freehold interest, where there are no covenants, a land title certificate may be issued; in all leases, a land title certificate cannot be issued without a registered lease. The Defendant claimed that he had a land title certificate in a leasehold transaction without a lease, rendering his alleged title certificate fraudulent. Other grounds put the legitimacy of the Defendant’s alleged land title certificate in question. They include the fact that it was alleged to have been issued in 1992 when the publication, which is a condition precedent to precede it, was instead issued on Wednesday, 1st January 1997, a statutory holiday when public newspapers were not published. There is an irregularity with the land title certificate, which goes to the root. The essence of newspaper publication to precede the issuance of a land title certi ficate is to give notice to persons whose interests would be compromised as a result of the registration to file a caveat. Still, in the case of the Defendant, the certificate was issued over five years before the newspaper publication that was to give notice. The general principle on pleadings under Order 11 rule 8 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) provides that defences that would take the other party by 20 surprise or would render the other party’s claim or defence not maintainable shall be pleaded to give the opposite party the right to respond. Still, fraud must be distinguished from other defences, such as laches and acquiescence, the statute of limitatio ns, and performance, which are rights that a party can waive in a given case. The three doctrines, namely, limitations, laches, and acquiescence, are matters that must be specifically pleaded; otherwise, they may take the opposite party by surprise. A limitation refers to a statutory time limit for bringing an action and must be rai sed to allow the opposing party to respond. Laches, on the other hand, is not time -bound but an equitable doctrine that prevents a party from asserting a right if that person has unreasonably delayed in pursuing it, thereby causing prejudice to the other p arty. In laches, the courts consider factors such as the length of the delay in asserting a right, the reasons for the delay, and its impact on the opposing party. Acquiescence occurs when a person passively or actively consents to another person’s action by failing to assert or object to a right that could be inferred from the action or inaction, and has the propensity to bar a claim or defence. The law requires all three doctrines to be pleaded, and where they are not. Still, evidence is adduced of same, it cannot be used against the opposite party as it will surprise that party by making his case not maintainable in law without the opportunity to respond, unlike the effect of unpleaded but admissible evidence which can be used once it is admissible but relevant and admitted without objection as discussed in the case of Edward Nasser & Co. Ltd. v McVroom and Another [1996 -97] SCGLR 468 and Abowaba v Adeshina (1946)12 WACA 18. The settled law is that any matter that will render the opposite party’s action not maintainable in law, and will come as a surprise, such as statute of limitation, laches, and acquiescence, must be specifically pleaded to allow the other party to be heard. The matters that are required to be pleaded, including statute of limitations, laches, acquiescence, fraud, performance, and release, are rights that may be waived. A party who would like to seize 21 the opportunity to exercise them must plead them, unlike matters of nullity and void, which can be raised at any time when it is not pleaded. The case of Dolphine No.3 v Speedline Stevedoring Co. Ltd. and Another [1996-97] SCGLR 514, where the Supreme Court unambiguously stated the position which accords with common law and the Rules of Court that defences of laches, acquiescence, and statute of limitation shall be specially pleaded. In a case where fraud is not pleaded but is apparent on the face of the record, it cannot be ignored merely because it is a public wrong, and an individual cannot decide to waive it. Fraud is a scarlet sin and vitiates everything, and where it is apparent on the face of the record, a court such as the Supreme Court cannot overlook it, and the Defendant’s land title certificate, which is tainted with fraud, shall be declared null and void. The position of fraud as discussed above accords with some of the re spectable decisions from this Court, including Apeah v Asamoah [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 226, Dzotepe v Hahormene III [1987-88] 2 GLR 681, SC, Amuzu v Oklikah [1998-99] SCGLR 141, and Okofoh Estates Ltd v Modern Signs Ltd [1996-97] SCGLR 233. All the allegations made against the Court of Appeal in its decision are unfounded and could not be proved. The Defendant, who has a burden to discharge by proving the errors or lapses committed by the Court of Appeal, has failed to prove any of them, and we find that the judgment was decided in accordance with the evidence on record and the appropriate laws on burden of proof. The appeal is dismissed as without merit, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 15th June, 2023, is hereby affirmed. 22 (SGD.) D. D. ADJEI (JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT) COUNSEL SAM SETH WOOD ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT. THOMAS GBLORVU ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.