This is a well-informed and thoughtful paper, capturing the transition from customary to statutory land law and the consequent establishment of the Land Commission in Ghana (2008). Despite obvious strengths, the work has its limitations and for further improvement of the research the following recommendations can be suggested:

First of all, it is visible some discrepancy in the title with the content of the article as well as the conclusion part. Namely, while the title states the consideration of: "ex-post evaluation of land title registration after 2008" (Ehwi & Asante: 2015, p. 1), however in conclusion section authors state that the study examined: "colonial period, post-independence, and after the merger of four land agencies into the National Lands Commission (NLC) in 2008." (Ibid, p. 14). Some incoherence between the title and the content in defining the scope and the timeframe of the research is observable. Secondly, the abstract is lacking precise identification of the problem as well as theoretical frameworks specification. While mentioning that the article seeks to evaluate the impact of the "2008 merger" of four different agencies into one Land Commission in 2008 (Ibid, p.1), the researchers listing in the abstract a comprehensive list of various problems related to land registration such as digitalization, corruption, lack of professional training for specialists, long duration of land registration services delivery, etc.

While reading the whole list of mentioned above problems, for the reader it is hard to identify what is the exact problem the authors trying to address. Therefore for further improvement of the work, more precise identification of the problem with a clearly formulated research question/s as well as a theoretical part and major results in the abstract is highly recommended.

Thirdly, the competent collection of materials and reference throughout the paper is visible, however, the researchers argue that empirical studies encompassing both institutional and legislative frameworks of land registration in Ghana: "is yet to be undertaken" (Ibid, p. 2), is not quite correct. The present article was published in 2016, while in 2009 the author Kasanga published an article "Land Administration Reforms and Social Differentiation: A Case Study of Ghana's Lands Commission" which captures also institutional and legislative dimensions of the work of Land Commission in Ghana. Needless to mention, the authors provide a reference to the earlier works of Kasanga (e.g. 2001), however not recent ones. Therefore for further improvement of the work, the usage of up to date or more recent publications in the field is could be recommended.

The overall discussion of the process of transition from customary to statutory law is well-formulated. Needless to mention that the authors did a good job of identifying the existing literature on the field, though it is visible that some recent works were written in this field e.g. (Kasanga: 2009, Ubink &Quan: 2008), etc. are missing. Also, the researchers do not explore the potentials and limitations of the existing literature on the field; Since this work is not the first one dedicated to the work of the Land Commission in Ghana further exploration of the potentials and limitations of the existing works on the field related to the work of Land Commission worldwide and in a local context of Ghana is highly desirable.

Such a discussion might be helpful for a more clear identification of the gap in the existing literature and the precise specification of the work relevance discussion. The researchers applying mixed research methods: a case study (the work of Land Commission in Accra), semi-structured interviews with Land Commission representatives, surveys with "general public" (Ehwi & Asante: 2016, p. 8). The reasoning for interview partners selection is well-formulated, however, the sampling method for the survey (closed-ended questionnaires) are not identified, it is possible to only assume that researchers used a convenience sampling as the authors stress that: "particular attention was given to persons found on the LRD premises who were scheduled to collect their land certificates." (Ibid, p. 8).

The researchers are concerned with the internal validity of the work, however, the causal mechanism seems rather weak. Since research questions are not clearly formulated at the beginning of the work, in conclusion, authors describe various problems in the work of Land Commission such as corruption, slow process of digitalization of land registration, overlapping functions between different departments, etc. Therefore it is unclear to the readers which are the main aspect the work focuses on. In terms of external validity, authors admit themselves that: "the study’s sample size (70 respondents) admittedly limits the ability to generalize the findings" (Ibid, p. 15) to other regions within the country and abroad.

Authors have used different data collection techniques including surveys, interviews as well as secondary sources. As a unit of analysis of a case study Land Commission in Accra (Ghana) was identified.
In surveys, the sample size is formulated clearly which is: "Seventy respondents participated in the survey and a 100% response rate"(Ehwi &Asante: 2016, p.17). The figures presented were taken partially from other academic sources and partially were constructed by the authors themselves. Figures constructed by authors themselves present the results of the survey analysis covering a broad range of issues such as: "Source of customer information on land title remedies" (Ibid, p. 11), "Number of title applications received and issued in Accra, 2008-2013" (Ibid, p. 11), "Number of respondents and the extra % fees respondents are prepared to pay for digitizing title registration" (Ibid, p. 11). Since the work captures a variety of different topics such as digitalization, anti-corruption (which was mentioned few times but was not explored precisely), duration of service delivery, etc. the work seems informative and quite comprehensive but at the same time needs further identification of the exact focus. Thus, fourthly, it could be suggested to select the main focus/problem of the paper, this will make the arguments in the discussion to sound more coherent.

In the conclusion section, the researchers emphasize that the study examined: "land title registration in Ghana during the colonial period, post-independence, and after the merger of four land agencies into the National Lands Commission (NLC) in 2008." (Ehwi &Asante: 2016, p. 14). However, such a conclusion statement does not correspond to the title of the article "Ex-Post Analysis of Land Title Registration in Ghana Since 2008 Merger: Accra Lands Commission in Perspective' and the main discussion of the work.

The researchers briefly stated in the introduction section the history of the transition from customary to the statutory law and the consequent establishment of Land Commissions, however, the authors are not quite explicit about the analysis of shortcoming of each period colonial, post-independence and Land Commission establishment. That is why some incoherence between the title, context, and the conclusion section is visible.

Summarizing it is possible to mention several strong sides of the paper such as the application of different data collection techniques as surveys, interviews, case study analysis etc; competent use of secondary sources; overall good discussion of the problems associated with customary law system and current state of the problem in land title registration. Despite all obvious strengths of the work, the article has several weaknesses that need to be addressed such as the unclear specification of the research question, timeframe, and scope of the research, and discussion of major results. In the conclusion section, the authors paying more attention to suggestion of several recommendations for further improvement of the work of the Land Commission such as performance-based pay for employees, further conduction of digitalization policy, etc, but less attention was paid to the discussion of major results relevance, and limitation of the paper. Therefore, for further improvement of the article could be recommended to add discussion in the main text and conclusion how the research work fills the gap, questions or complements the existing literature in the field.