(His lordship stated the facts and continued:-)
It is admitted by the plaintiffs that Nii Abose Okai was a competent authority to convey Akumadjaye Stool land, and that consequently Exhibit “1” executed by him is a valid document. And, of course, it is admitted by the defendants too, that Nii Ayikai being the occupant of the said Akumadjaye Stool is a competent authority to alienate lands of the stool, and that, in consequence, Exhibit “B” and Exhibit “C,” executed by him, are both valid documents.
Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted, however, that the land in dispute could not be the identical land which Nii Abose Okai had granted and conveyed to the late Henerike Cornelius Malm, because
(1) there are no data on the plan attached to Exhibit “1” which identify the land subject matter of that deed, with the land in dispute,
(2) the report Exhibit “A” issued by the Registrar of Deed, when a search was made in his registry against the lands subject matter of the suit, showed that …