Akpakini v Geley and Another (A1/03/2024) [2024] GHADC 739 (18 November 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GHANA, NGLESHIE AMANFRO DISTRICT COURT HELD ON 18TH NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE HER WORSHIP EMELIA K. ABRUQUAH ESQ., (MRS). SUIT NO: A1/03/2024 SAMUEL ETSE AKPAKINI PLAINTIFF VRS MR GELEY MADAM ADZO DEFENDANTS NANA PARTIES PRESENT JUDGMENT The Plaintiff caused the issuance of the Writ of Summons to commence this action on 6th October, 2023 against three Defendants. The Plaintiff claims “for the sum of GHC 50,000.00 being the amount spent in putting up the structure from the foundation to window level. B. An order compelling Defendants to give up vacant possession of land immediately C. General Damages for breach of contract D. Any other order(s) as the court may deem fit Plaintiff filed statement of claim in which he stated that, the first and second defendants somewhere in 2011 approached and requested for half plot of land to construct a wooden 1 | P a g e structure to live in temporarily but he told them he could only get them quarter of a plot at GHC30,00.00. That first and second defendants promised to pay later but never did and plaintiff also decided to develop the remaining part of the plot where a three bed room structure was put up to window level. Plaintiff averred that he visited the site and saw that his structure had been pulled down and when he questioned the defendants, they admitted it. Plaintiff stated that he did not sell that land to the defendants and they have also not paid the GHC30,000.00 for the quarter plot of land bought. In their joint statement of defence filed on 31st October, 2023, the defendants averred that it is true they approached the plaintiff for half plot of land and that is never true that the plaintiff said he can only give them quarter plot. They averred further that the land was acquired in 2008 and not 2011 as alleged by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff sold the land to them at GHC2000.00 and not GHC30,000.00 . Defendants further stated that the plaintiff put up two rooms and not three rooms as he had indicated and that they have no ideal as to who pulled the wall down and they never admitted anywhere that they pulled it down. They added that the plaintiff is not entitle to his reliefs ISSUES From the foregoing the issues that call for determination are: 1. Whether or not the plaintiff sold quarter or half plot of land to the first and second defendants at GHC30,00.00 in the year 2011 2. And whether or not the plaintiff’s building was pulled down by the defendants. EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND LEGAL ANALYSIS It is the duty of a Plaintiff to prove his case for a determination to be made in his/her favour. A party who raises issues essential to the success of his/her case assumes the onus of proof and as such a person who alleges, whether a plaintiff or a defendant, assumes the initial burden of producing evidence. It is only when such a person has been successful in producing evidence that the other party will be required to lead rebuttal evidence, if need be. In the case 2 | P a g e of T. Chandiram v. Tetteh [2018] 120 GMJ 112 @ 147 C. A, Her Ladyship Agnes M. A. Dordzie, J. A (as she then was) noted on the standard of proof in civil cases as follows: “[T]he standard of proof in a civil suit is placed on the ‘balance of probabilities. Section 12 (2) of the Evidence Act defines it as follows: “Preponderance of the probabilities” means that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non- existence.” Again, in the case of Agbosu v Kotey; In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands [2003-2004] SCGLR 420, His Lordship Brobbey, JSC (Rtd.) noted: “The effect of sections 11(1) and 14 and similar sections in the Evidence Decree 1975 may be described as follows: A litigant who is a Defendant in a civil case does not need to prove anything. The Plaintiff who took the Defendant to court has to prove what he claims he is entitled to from the defendant... At the same time if the court has to make a determination of a fact or of an issue, and that determination depends on the evaluation of facts and evidence, the defendant must realize that the determination cannot be made on nothing. If the defendant desires a determination to be made in his favour, then he has a duty to help his own cause or case by adducing before the court such facts or evidence that will induce the determination to be made in his favour…” In Ackah Vrs. Pergah Transport Ltd. [2010] SCGLR 728, the Supreme Court held that it is a basic Principle of the law of evidence that a party who bears the burden of prove is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail. The method of producing evidence is varied and includes the testimonies of the party and material witnesses, admissible hearsay evidence, documentary evidence and other things or real evidence without which the party might not succeed to establish the requisite degree of credibility concerning a fact in the proof mind of the court. In the instant case, the burden lies on the plaintiff to adduce sufficient evidence to convince the court that his outstanding claim is more probable than not. 3 | P a g e The Plaintiff therefore has the responsibility of adducing evidence which is sufficient enough to avoid a ruling against him on the issues before the Court. See also the following cases: Takoradi Flour Mills vs. Samir Faris [2005-2006] SCGLR 882 @ 900 GIHOC Refrigeration & Household vs. Jean Hanna Assi (2005-2006) SCGLR 458 Tagoe v. Accra Brewery [2016] 93 GMJ 103 S. C Deliman Oil v. HFC Bank [2016] 92 GMJ 1 C. A. Baker-Woode v Nana Fitz [2007-2008] SCGLR 879 Ababio v Akwesi III [1994-95] GBR 774 Air Namibia v. Micon Travel [2015] 91 GMJ 173 @ 191 C. A The Plaintiff herein therefore had the duty in the course of the suit to produce sufficient evidence in respect of his claims on a balance of probabilities for a determination to be made in his favour. See also the case of In Re Krah (Decd.); Yankyeraah v Osei-Tutu & Another [1989] DLSC 601. PLAINTIFF’S CASE: In his evidence-in-chief filed on 15th February 2024, the Plaintiff testified that his friend by name Joshua called him somewhere in January 2007 and told him his brother, Nana and Adzo had no place to sleep so he gave them a single room and they later came and pleaded for a place for their father, whom he also gave him a single room to live in. Plaintiff testified further that in the year 2008, the defendants told him they needed a quarter plot of land to put up a wooden structure for a carpentry shop. According to the plaintiff he sold the quarter plot of land to the defendants at GHC30,000.00 in 2008, which to date the defendants have not paid him. Plaintiff also testified that, he started a three bed room building on the remaining land up to window level. He was there when one Gideon came to inform him that he saw the defendants demolishing his building, so he went to the site two weeks later to verify and the 4 | P a g e defendants told him that land belongs to them. He said he never sold that land to them and they have not also paid for the quarter plot he sold to them in 2008 so they should take their structure out of the place. PW1 is the person who went to report to the plaintiff that the defendants were demolishing his building. He testified that he was passing by on 19th July 2022 and saw the defendants demolishing the building and when he asked why they were doing that, they started insulting him so he left and went to report to the plaintiff and on 22nd JULY 2022, the plaintiff called to tell him that he went to the site and he sent the defendants to court. DEFENDANTS’ CASE: The Defendants filed a joint witness statement on 13th December, 2023. In it they testified that they approached the plaintiff for half plot of land which they acquire in 2008 and that it is never true that the plaintiff told them he was giving them quarter of a plot. According to the defendants, the plaintiff sold half plot of land to them at GHC2,000.00 in 2008. Defendants said they have no idea as to who pulled down the plaintiff’s structure on the land. The defendants are claiming for the following items which plaintiff took to build for them which he never did: a. iron rod----5 b. Sand----------Two trips c. Stones------One trip d. Labour-----GHC700.00 e. Cement-----15 bags The sole witness of the Defendants testified that he led the first defendant to the plaintiff to acquire half piece of a plot of land. According to DW1, plaintiff sold the land to the 1st 5 | P a g e defendant at GHC2,000.00 in the year 2008. That the first defendant made full payment to the land in his presence as a witness. Plaintiff advised the 1st defendant that due to the harassment of land guards in the area, he himself will undertake the building work for him. He added the first defendant deposited one trip of stones, and two trips of sand on the land, after which the third defendant assisted the plaintiff to mould 1,200 pieces of blocks on the land. Plaintiff failed to construct the building and rather sold the blocks out and that the defendants do not owe the plaintiff in anyway. ANALYSIS I now proceed to determine the first issue which is whether or not the plaintiff sold quarter plot of land to the defendants at GHC30,000.00 in 2011. The plaintiff alleged that he sold quarter plot of land to the defendants in 2011 at GHC30,000.00 which has not been paid for. In his witness statement however, he now says he sold the land to them in 2008. Assuming without admitting that he sold a quarter plot of land at GHC 30,00.00 to the defendants in 2008, which is now 18 years, what prevented him from demanding his money all that long. Could it be that the defendants don’t owe him. The defendants vehemently denied the plaintiff’s allegation and invited DW1 who said to be present when the first defendant was paying for the land which he said it was half plot and not quarter plot. With this the plaintiff never saw the need to cross examine the defendant on it. I reproduce the questions asked the DW1 during cross examination by the plaintiff Q. You claim that I have sold the blocks but 3rd defendant says he gave the blocks to me to work A: Q: The blocks were nowhere to be found, you sold them. I put it you that 3rd Defendant did not make any blocks. A: That is not true, 3rd Defendant helped you make the Blocks which were right beside me Q: I put it to you that your claim that you led 3rd Defendant to make payment to me is not true. 6 | P a g e A: It is true, I was together with them when they made the payment. Q: I put it to you that 3rd Defendant told the court that 1st Defendant gave him money to be paid to me which you weren't there. A: I was present. Q: I put it to you that you are not being truthful to this court. A: I am saying the truth. It therefore stand to reason from the above exchanges that what DW1 said that the plot was half plot in his evidence stood uncontroverted as the plaintiff failed to cross examine him on it. Plaintiff’s sole witness stated in his witness statement that, ’’on 19th July, 2022,at Kasoa Galilea, I was passing near plaintiff’s land when I saw Nana, his wife madam Adzo and their Mr Geley accused persons, pulling down plaintiff’s three bed room house.’’ However, this is the answer he gave during Cross- Examination when the following questions were asked. Q: You alleged you saw us demolishing the structure, can you give us the date on which we did that? A: Yes, it was 10th June, 2004. Q: If you are saying 10th June, 2004, then I am putting it to you that you are not being truthful because the 1st Defendant left Galilea in 2016 and has never returned since then. A: That is not true. From the above, PW1 stated in his evidence that he saw them demolishing the building in July 2022 and now says under cross examination that, it was on 10th June 2004. These two dates are not close to each other at all for the court to may be consider. This therefore, to suggest that the PWI is not a truthful witness before this court. All the above notwithstanding, the plaintiff wants this court to believe that quarter of a plot of land at Amanfro was sold at GHC 30,000.00 in 2008? The court has taken the pain to verify this fact 7 | P a g e by soliciting information from the chiefs and some opinion leaders including the panel members of ADR, who all told this court that, a full plot of land in the year 2008 was not sold more than GHC5,000.00. What type of quarter plot was sold at GHC30,00.00. Was the said plot located at East Legon? The answer is no, located at Amanfro. I therefore hold that no quarter plot of land was sold to the defendants at GHC30,000.00. Plaintiff is also alleging that no pesewa of the GHC30,000.00 was paid to him since 2008. In this regard, it was held in the case of ALEC GRANT SAM AND OTHERS V. UNILEVER GHANA LTD AND OTHERS Supreme Court · CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/48/2014 Laches refers to slackness or unreasonable delay in pursuing their right or claim upon discovery of the fraud in respect of the disputed land. Acquiescence refers to a person’s tacit or passive acceptance; implied consent to an act. [See Black’s Law Dictionary, Eight Edition, by Bryan A. Garner] So by plaintiff going to sleep on his rights knowing that the defendants were on the land and did not act timeously to either take his money or land and allowed 18 years to go by means he consented to waive every right that was available to him. He cannot therefore be heard demanding that payment or be demanding to repossess the land. On the issue of demanding GHC50,00.00 for the demolishing of his three bed room building, the least talked about it the better. His informant did not know what he was talking about. In one breath, he saw them demolishing the building in 2022 and in another June2004, so which date is correct? , the plaintiff once more failed to adduce cogent evidence to prove his allegation. His claims for GHC50,00.00 for demolishing off his three bed room building therefore falls flat as he has no evidence to support his claims. This Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff has failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he sold quarter plot to the defendants on a balance of probabilities. The inconsistencies surrounding his and his sole witness evidence is so grave that it will be an error for a 8 | P a g e competent and a reasonable Court to declare that the land in dispute belongs to the Plaintiff or to grant him the reliefs he seeks. CONCLUSION Having analysed the evidence adduced by the parties herein, this Court finds that the Plaintiff was unable to discharge the burden of proof on him to entitle him to the reliefs he seeks from this Court. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s case fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Cost of GHC1000.00 is awarded the defendants H/W EMELIA K. ABRUQUAH (MRS) (MAGISTRATE) 9 | P a g e