VILAS VRS NAOMI (A1/10/23) [2024] GHACC 92 (24 April 2024)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, HELD IN NSUTA, ON WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 BEFORE HER HONOUR WINNIE AMOATEY-OWUSU, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE OFORI VILAS SUIT NO: A1/10/23 OF WIAMOASE-ASHANTI PLAINTIFF VRS. OSAH NAOMI OF BEPOASE-ASHANTI DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 1. On 21st June 2023, the Plaintiff issued the instant Writ and accompanying Statement of Claim, claiming against the Defendant the following: i. ii. Declaration of title to Plot No. Q. 121, Bepoase; Recovery of possession; and iii. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, her agents, assigns, servants, privies and all who Page 1 of 60 claim through her from dealing with Plot No. Q 121, Bepoase and the peaceful occupation of same by him. 2. The Defendant filed her appearance on 3rd July 2023 accompanied by her Statement of Defence; she made no counterclaim. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence on 11th July 2023. 3. The crux of the Plaintiff’s case as gleaned from the Statement of Claim is that he and the Defendant were married about seven years ago and had a male child called Ofori Frank. At the time he met the Defendant, he had already opened his welding shop at Bepoase. During their marriage, he was able to mobilize resources and erected a container shop and stocked same with goods (provisions) for the Defendant for business. The Defendant traded in the container shop and was able to construct a single room on her family land. That, he continued to work hard and was able to acquire Plot No. Q 121 located at Navrongo, a suburb of Bepoase and constructed a dwelling house on it up to roofing level. Their marriage fell on rocks and when all efforts to reconcile them proved futile, the Defendant Page 2 of 60 returned his marital drinks to him. That, he was involved in a motor accident and was bedridden for some time at Wiamoase and when he recovered, he decided to go back to Bepoase to see the house he had constructed, but to his surprise, the building had been roofed. The Defendant got wind of his presence in Bepoase, phoned and insulted him that the building belonged to her because he built it in her hometown. The Defendant also threatened to deal with him if he did not vanish from the site. 4. The Plaintiff’s case is further that the Defendant has remarried and she and her husband are currently occupying the house he constructed with his own resources even though he has given to the Defendant, the container stocked with provisions and an amount of GH¢1,000 as ‘push off’ which she and her family have accepted. That, the Defendant’s conduct is in bad faith because she has remarried and with the support of her husband, has roofed the building and is now living in it with her husband although she did not contribute a pesewa to the acquisition of the plot and the construction of the building. He said on hearing the Defendant had Page 3 of 60 roofed the house, he called to ask her why she did so without his knowledge and if the house belonged to her and the Defendant’s response was that she did so in order to rent same to get money to maintain her child. That, the Defendant further told him she would not hand over the house to him as long as it remained in her hometown, Bepoase. That, because of the threats by the Defendant, he is not able to go to his house at Bepoase. He said he made the Defendant aware that he was putting up the building for his two children he had before their marriage. That, the house is a five-bedroom house with a hall for the benefit of three children: his child with the Defendant and two children his deceased sister left behind. He said the Defendant has no valid defence and that her conduct is a calculated attempt to take over his house in the name of the child they have together. 5. The Defendant admits paragraph 1, 2, 3, 5 and 11 of the Statement of Claim but denies paragraph 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 thereof. The crux of her case is that at the time she and the Plaintiff met and agreed to marry, the Plaintiff’s welding shop was located at Wiamoase and not Page 4 of 60 Bepoase. That, the Plaintiff told her he wanted to open another shop at Bepoase so she decided to help him since they were then preparing to get married. Therefore, being a native of Bepoase, she consulted her grandfather and explained the Plaintiff’s plan to him and asked him to allocate a portion of their family land to the Plaintiff to enable him open his welding shop. That, her grandfather agreed and allocated a portion of land to the Plaintiff without fee and the Plaintiff built his welding shop on it and started working in it. Subsequently, they got married. According to the Defendant, before she met the Plaintiff, she was operating her provisions business in a kiosk so she told the Plaintiff she wanted to migrate her business from the kiosk to a container shop and asked for his assistance since he is an electric welder. That, the Plaintiff told her the total cost of the container shop would be GH¢2,000 but he did not have money so she should give him GH¢800 to add up to the money he had to enable him erect the container shop for her. She testified further that she and the Plaintiff agreed and contributed equally to purchase a cocoa farm at Wiamoase Tom at a price of GH¢1,600, which document is in the Plaintiff’s custody. That, she and Page 5 of 60 the Plaintiff used the proceeds from the cocoa farm to purchase the half plot of land described as Plot No. Q 121, Bepoase. She allowed the Plaintiff to use his name on the land document because he was then her husband. After they had purchased Plot No. Q 121, Bepoase, the Plaintiff told her that she should cater for the family with her own resources and income since he was using the proceeds from the cocoa farm to build the house for her and their son, which she agreed. She maintained that she and the Plaintiff purchased Plot No. Q 121, Bepoase with proceeds from the cocoa farm and further used the same proceeds to construct the house to lintel level. After the building had reached lintel level, the Plaintiff sought her agreement to open a store at Kofiase-Asem to sell agro chemicals, which she gave. 6. It is the Defendant’s further case that when the Plaintiff started operating the agro chemical store, his behavior started to change and he did not sleep in the house for almost a year. While the Plaintiff was not sleeping in the matrimonial home, he used to send her GH¢20 fortnightly as chop money for her and their child. She reported the Page 6 of 60 issue to the Plaintiff’s uncle, one Mr. Afum at Wiamoase to help resolve the issue but it proved futile. The Plaintiff also stopped answering her phone calls and stopped visiting her and their child. A misunderstanding arose between her and the Plaintiff on phone and she rained a curse on him. As a result of the curse, the Plaintiff and his family came to seek redress and during the meeting, they asked the Plaintiff if he would still marry her but the Plaintiff told the meeting he was thinking about it and would communicate his response to her family. Three months later, the Plaintiff sent two elderly members of his family to her family with a message that he could no longer marry her and in view of that, they had brought an amount of GH¢1,000 together with the uncompleted building at Bepoase as alimony. The elderly persons however refused to give her the document covering the uncompleted building so she asked them for it and they told her they would submit same in two weeks. Subsequently, to avoid distraction and because the uncompleted building was given to her by the Plaintiff as alimony, she used her own resources to roof it. That, after the dissolution of their marriage, the Plaintiff has failed to provide maintenance for their son and that she has been Page 7 of 60 catering for him alone. She said that, during their marriage, the Plaintiff told her he had two children and wanted to build a house for them in their hometown at Wiamoase so he could not afford a full plot of land but a half plot, which she agreed. That, she allowed the Plaintiff to use the proceeds from the cocoa farm to build the house for her and their child whilst he used the income from his electric welding business to build same for his two children at Wiamoase. That, the uncompleted house that was given to her consists of four-bedrooms and not five-bedrooms as claimed by the Plaintiff. She denied using her authority to forcefully take over Plot No. Q 121, Bepoase and said that she has not stepped foot on the cocoa farm since the house was given to her as alimony. She concludes that the Plaintiff is not entitled to his reliefs and that he is actuated by malice. 7. By his Reply, the Plaintiff joined issues with the Defendant on all the material issues. 8. Application for directions was taken on 2nd August 2023 and the following issues were set down for trial: Page 8 of 60 i. Whether or not the Plaintiff and Defendant jointly acquired a cocoa farm during their marriage; ii. Whether or not the land in dispute was acquired by the Plaintiff and Defendant jointly with proceeds from the cocoa farm; iii. Whether or not the Plaintiff solely acquired the land in dispute and constructed a house thereon up to roofing level; iv. Whether or not the Plaintiff gave the land in dispute to the Defendant as alimony; v. Whether or not the land in dispute belongs to the Plaintiff; and vi. Any other issues arising from the pleadings. 9. Upon the direction of the Court, parties filed their pre-trial checklists and Witness Statements. Case Management Conference was held and the case proceeded to trial. The Plaintiff testified personally and called three witnesses: George Tiah-(PW1), Samuel Owusu-(PW2) and Acheampong Abu Tahidu-(PW3). They relied on their Witness Statements filed on 17th August 2023. The Page 9 of 60 Defendant also testified personally and called three witnesses: Yaa Achiaa– (DW1), Ofori Kwame- (DW2) and Nana Opoku Agyemang Brefo (Bepoasehene)- (DW3). They relied on their Witness Statements filed on 22nd August 2023. 10. The following were tendered in furtherance of the Plaintiff’s case: i. Exhibit A- Allocation paper covering Plot. No. Q 121, Bepoase; ii. Exhibit B- Transfer of Cocoa farm document; and iii. Exhibit C: Pen drive containing two audio recordings of phone conversation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Defendant on the other hand tendered no exhibit in furtherance of her case. 11. On 12th April 2024, the Plaintiff filed a written Address and same has been considered in this Judgment. 12. Contrary to the Plaintiff’s claim at page 5 of his written Address that Exhibit C was withdrawn, that is not the case. Rather, it was a pen drive which the Defendant had Page 10 of 60 filed on 22nd August 2023 together with her Witness Statements that she withdrew on 14th February 2024 before closing her case on the said date. I must state that the recordings on Exhibit C are not in English language, the official language of the Court. One is a 49 seconds recording whilst the other is a 2 minutes 32 seconds recording. Because the Plaintiff did not produce the translation and or transcription of the audio recordings in the English language, same could not be considered by the Court. Accordingly, no probative value was assigned to Exhibit C. 13. The general rule in civil cases is that a person who makes an averment or assertion which is denied by his opponent has the burden to establish that his averment or assertion is true. The party does not discharge this burden unless he leads admissible and credible evidence from which the fact or facts he asserts can properly and safely be inferred. See Okudzeto Ablakwa (No.2) v. Attorney- General & Obetsebi-Lamptey (No.2) [2012] 2 SCGLR 845. In Bank of West Africa v. Ackun [1963] 1 GLR 176, it was held that the onus of proof in civil cases depends upon the Page 11 of 60 pleadings and the party who in his pleadings raises an issue essential to the success of his case assumes the burden of proof. 14. The burden of proof in civil cases is codified in the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) as follows: “Burden of Proof 10. Burden of persuasion defined (1) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of persuasion means the obligation of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court. (2) The burden of persuasion may require a party a) to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the existence or non-existence of a fact, or b) to establish the existence or non-existence of a fact by a preponderance of the probabilities or by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Page 12 of 60 11. Burden of producing evidence defined (1) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling on the issue against that party. (4) In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence which on the totality of the evidence, leads a reasonable mind to conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence. 12. Proof by a preponderance of the probabilities (1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities. (2) “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. Page 13 of 60 14. Allocation of burden of persuasion Except as otherwise provided by law, unless it is shifted a party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or non-existence of which is essential to the claim or defence that party is asserting.” 15. The standard of proof in civil cases is proof on a balance or preponderance of probabilities. In re Presidential Election Petition (No. 4) Akufo-Addo & Ors v. Mahama & Ors [2013] SCGLR (Special Edition) 73 @ 322, the Supreme Court stated that, “Our understanding of the rules in the Evidence Decree, 1975 on the burden of proof is that in assessing the balance of probabilities, all the evidence, be it that of the plaintiff, or the defendant, must be considered and the party in whose favour the balance tilts is the person whose case is the more probable of the rival versions and is deserving of a favourable verdict.” 16. In Majolagbe v. Larbi [1959] GLR 190 @ 192, Ollennu J. (as he then was) quoting his decision in Khoury v. Richter stated the obligation or standard of proof as follows: Page 14 of 60 "Proof in law is the establishment of facts by proper legal means. Where a party makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way, e.g. by producing documents, description of things, reference to other facts, instances, or circumstances, and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the witness-box and repeating that averment on oath, or having it repeated on oath by his witness. He proves it by producing other evidence of facts and circumstances, from which the Court can be satisfied that what he avers is true." See also Ackah v. Pergah Transport Ltd. [2010] SCGLR 731 17. I intend to deal with the issues in turns, starting with issue (i): Whether or not the Plaintiff and Defendant jointly acquired a cocoa farm during their marriage. 18. The evidence suggests that the Plaintiff and the Defendant got married in 2018 and the marriage was dissolved in 2020 in accordance with custom. There is however insufficient evidence about the kind of marriage they contracted. In her evidence-in-chief, the Defendant merely stated that their marriage was registered at the Page 15 of 60 Registrar-General’s Department. But, that statement alone is not enough to enable the Court make a finding on the kind of marriage they contracted because different kinds of marriages are celebrated or registered at the Registrar- General’s Department. Be that as it may, since the instant suit is not an action under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), I do not deem it necessary to delve further into the said marriage and the events that led to its breakdown, save to say that, if the parties contracted a marriage under the Ordinance, then they cannot be divorced without proceedings in Court to pronounce their marriage dissolved. 19. Whereas it is the Plaintiff’s case that he singlehandedly acquired the cocoa farm at Wiamoase Tom in the name of his son called Abdulai Mohammed, the Defendant asserts she and the Plaintiff contributed equally and jointly purchased the cocoa farm at a price of GH¢1,600. 20. To prove his case, the Plaintiff testified in his evidence-in- chief that he bought the cocoa farm in the name of his son called Abdulai Mohammed and as such, the transfer Page 16 of 60 document is in his son’s name. He said he bought the cocoa farm from PW1 who executed the transfer document on 5th June 2018 after he had paid the consideration of GH¢4,500 in the presence of witnesses. The Plaintiff tendered as Exhibit B the document covering the transfer of the cocoa farm. Exhibit B is headed “TRANSFERRED[sic] OF COCOA FARM LAND AT OTOM BOMSO WIAMOASE STOOL LAND” and contains declarations made by PW1 indicating the said cocoa farm belongs to him but he had transferred same to Mr. Abdullai Mohammed as from 5th June 2018. It is dated 5th June 2018 and shows that Mr. Abdullai Mohammed paid PW1 an amount of GH¢4,500 for the farm. Further, it bears signatures at the portions designated for PW1 and Abdullai Mohammed as Giver and Recipient respectively and a thumbprint and signatures of three witnesses. Parts of the Plaintiff’s cross-examination on the acquisition of the cocoa farm are also as follows: Q: Do you remember that you and I bought the cocoa farm? Page 17 of 60 A: That is not true. I bought the cocoa farm for my eldest son. A certain man called Martin who was brought up by my late father and because I named my son after my late father, Martin decided to buy a half plot of land at Wiamoasae Tanoso for my son. I sold that half plot that Martin bought for my son and I added an amount of money to the proceeds and used it to buy the cocoa farm for my son. Q: I put it to you that I contributed GH¢800.00 towards the purchase of the cocoa farm. A: That is not true. I even have the documents covering the land that Martin gave my son which I sold. It was executed on 4/6/2018 and I bought the cocoa farm on 5/6/2018. Q: Do you remember that because I contributed towards the purchase of the cocoa farm, you brought me a copy of the document for safekeeping? A: It is not true. The document I gave you was something like a will indicating that in the event of my demise, you and all my children (our son and your two step Page 18 of 60 children) should share the cocoa farm. At that time, I had brought my son Abdulai Mohammed to live with you and me and our son. Q: I put it to you that you subsequently came for the document from me. A: That is not true. Q: I put it to you that because you wanted to remove my name from that document, you came for it from me? A: That is not true. I did not collect any document from you. 21. PW1 corroborates the Plaintiff’s testimony on all material particulars. PW1 in his evidence-in-chief testified that he got to know the Plaintiff when he was offering for sale, his one and half acre cocoa farm located at Tom near Wiamoase. He said the Plaintiff heard about the offer and expressed interest in purchasing same. The agreed price was GH¢4,500 and the Plaintiff paid cash for it on 5th June 2018 and he duly executed a transfer document for the Plaintiff in the name of his son. He said the Plaintiff does Page 19 of 60 not owe him any money in respect of the sale of the cocoa farm. Parts of PW1’s cross-examination are reproduced below: Q: When the Plaintiff bought the cocoa farm, did he pay you? A: Yes, he paid me. Q: Did the Plaintiff tell you where he got the money to make the payment? A: No, My Lord. Q: After the Plaintiff had bought the cocoa farm and paid you, what name did he give you to use for the documentation? A: I have forgotten the name he gave me but he told me the person was his son. His son was also not present at that time. Q: After you had sold the cocoa farm to the Plaintiff, who was he coming to the farm with? Page 20 of 60 A: I cannot tell because I had nothing to do with the farm after I had sold it so I was no longer going there. Q: I put it to you that I contributed part of the money that the plaintiff used to buy the cocoa farm from you. A: I cannot tell; I do not know. Q: I put it to you that the transfer document you prepared when you sold the Cocoa farm, had the Plaintiff’s name and mine as buyers. A: I did not see anything like that. Q: I put it to you that you are a suborn witness. Plaintiff has given you money to come and tell the Court that my name is not on the transfer document. A: Plaintiff has not given me anything. Q: You are not being truthful if you are telling the Court that you are not aware that I used to come with the plaintiff to the cocoa farm. A: I am speaking the truth. I am not aware that you used to come to the farm with the Plaintiff. Page 21 of 60 Q: I put it to you that you and the Plaintiff have connived and removed my name from the Transfer document covering the cocoa farm. A: That is not true. Q: I am further putting it to you that after buying the cocoa farm from you, I and the Plaintiff have been working on it. A: I cannot tell. Q: I put it to you that your testimony in this Court has been full of falsehoods. A: I am telling this Court the truth. Q: I put it to you that the cocoa farm belongs to me and the Plaintiff. He never bought it in the name of his son or for any son. A: Plaintiff told me he was buying the cocoa farm for his son. 22. Also, when the Defendant cross-examined PW2, this ensued: Page 22 of 60 Q: You remember that the Plaintiff and I engaged you to construct a single room on our cocoa farm? A: No, I do not. It was the plaintiff who engaged me to put up the room on the cocoa farm. You were not present when he engaged me. Q: Are you telling this Court that I did not fetch water for you to use when you were constructing the room on the cocoa farm? A: You fetched water for the construction. 23. The Defendant on her part testified in her evidence-in- chief that she and the Plaintiff jointly acquired the cocoa farm and she paid GH¢800 to support him. Parts of the Defendant’s cross-examination are as follows: Q: I put it to you that the cocoa farm you are referring to belongs to my son Abdulai Mohammed. A: That is not true. Q: Again, I put it to you that you have no idea how much it cost me to buy that cocoa farm for my son. Page 23 of 60 A: That is not true. What I know is that when you were going to purchase the cocoa farm, you collected GH¢800.00 from me. 24. Despite the Defendant’s claim that she and the Plaintiff contributed equally to buy the cocoa farm at GH¢1,600, there is evidence from the Plaintiff, corroborated by PW1 and supported by Exhibit B that the full price of the cocoa farm was GH¢4,500 and that Abdulai Mohammed is the owner or recipient of the cocoa farm sold or transferred by PW1. Also, despite the Defendant’s claim that the Plaintiff and PW1 had connived to remove her name from the original transfer document, she led no evidence to show how different Exhibit B is from the said original transfer document that had her name. The position of the law is that documentary evidence should be preferred over oral evidence unless good reason exists why the oral testimony should be preferred. In Duah v. Yorkwa [1993-94] 1 GLR 217, Brobbey JA (as he then was) stated at page 235 that, “Whenever there is in existence a written document and oral evidence over a transaction, the practice in this court is to consider both the oral and the documentary evidence Page 24 of 60 and often to lean favourably towards the documentary evidence, especially where the documentary evidence is found to be authentic and the oral evidence conflicting.” See also Hayfron v. Egyir [1984-86] 1 GLR 682; Republic v. Nana Akuamoah Boateng II, Ex parte Dansoa & Anor [1982-83] GLR 913-922. Further, PW2’s testimony that the Defendant fetched water for the construction of the single room on the cocoa farm does not in any way prove her financial contribution towards the purchase of the farm. 25. On the balance of the probabilities, I find that it is more probable that the Plaintiff singlehandedly purchased the cocoa farm at Wiamoase Tom. 26. Next is issue (ii), whether or not the land in dispute was acquired by the Plaintiff and Defendant jointly with proceeds from the cocoa farm. 27. In Mondial Veneer (Gh.) Ltd. v. Amuah Gyebu XV [2011] SCGLR 466 at page 475, the Supreme Court per Wood C. J had this to say about the burden of proof in actions for declaration of title to land: “In land litigation, even where living witnesses who were directly involved in Page 25 of 60 the transaction under reference are produced in court as witnesses, the law requires the person asserting title, and on whom the burden of persuasion falls, as in this instant case, to prove the root of his title, mode of acquisition and various acts of possession exercised over the subject- matter of litigation. It is only where the party has succeeded in establishing these facts on a balance of probabilities that the party would be entitled to the claim.” 28. It is also trite learning that in an action for declaration of title to land, recovery of possession and injunction, the Plaintiff must establish by positive evidence the identity and limits of the land he claims. See Abed Nortey v. African Institute of Journalism and Communication, Civil Appeal No. J4/47/2013 dated 26th February, 2014 (unreported); Nyikplorkpo v. Agbodotor [1987-88] GLR 165; Gawu III & Anor v. Ponuku [1960] GLR 101 29. In this case, the identity of the land in dispute is not in contention. It is Plot No. Q. 121 situate at Navrongo, a suburb of Bepoase. Whereas the Plaintiff asserts he singlehandedly worked hard to purchase the land in Page 26 of 60 dispute, the Defendant claims she and the Plaintiff acquired it with proceeds from a cocoa farm they jointly acquired. 30. To prove his case, the Plaintiff testified that he worked hard to acquire the house on the land in dispute with resources from his shops at Wiamoase, Bepoase and Kofiase. He said he was granted an allocation paper upon acquisition of the land in dispute, which he tendered as Exhibit A. During the Plaintiff’s cross-examination, the Defendant claimed that while they were married, she used to work with the Plaintiff on the cocoa farm and that, it was proceeds from the cocoa farm that they used to acquire the land in dsipute. This is what transpired: Q: With whom have you been harvesting the cocoa on the cocoa farm that we bought? A: I have been harvesting the cocoa with my daughter called Evelyn Ofori and my nephew, also called Ofori Vilas, who is named after me. Page 27 of 60 Q: I am putting it to you that I am the one who has been harvesting the cocoa with you. A: That is not true. Q: I am putting it to you that I have been assisting you to apply weedicides on the cocoa farm by fetching water to fill the Knapsack to mix the weedicide. A: That is not true. It was only on one occasion when we were going to my sister’s farm to collect cassava and I showed you Abdulai Mohammed’s cocoa farm and took you there. It is not the case that you have been assisting with work on the cocoa farm. Q: I put to you that it was proceeds from our cocoa farm that we used to acquire Plot Q 121. A: That is not true. 31. To prove her case, the Defendant testified that during their marriage, she helped the Plaintiff to acquire the land in dispute measuring half plot, with proceeds from cocoa so that she and their child could get a place to sleep. That the land in dispute was purchased in her name, Naomi Page 28 of 60 Osah, which allocation paper the Plaintiff showed to her one night. 32. I have already found on issue (i) that the Plaintiff singlehandedly purchased the cocoa farm. Contrary to the Defendant’s claim that the allocation paper covering the land in dispute was issued in her name, there is ample evidence that that is not the case. Exhibit A is issued on the letterhead of Bepoase Stool Land and dated 20th July 2018. It has DW3’s name as Bepoasehene and shows that Plot No. Q 121, Blk Navorongo [sic] has been allocated to the Plaintiff. It also has the Plaintiff’s name and phone number at the bottom and a signature at the portion earmarked for DW3. Further, it is copied to the District Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands, Agona-Ashanti. It is also worthy of mention that Exhibit A was tendered without objection from the Defendant and although it does not have her name as she claimed, she did not challenge it when she had the opportunity to cross-examine the Plaintiff. Also, DW3, the occupant of the Bepoase Stool who issued Exhibit A to the Plaintiff did not in his evidence, challenge its authenticity in anyway. Page 29 of 60 33. DW3 also testified that the land in dispute was purchased by the Defendant and the Plaintiff during their marriage. However, this ensued when DW3 was cross-examined: Q: Upon the dissolution of our marriage, the Defendant threatened that because I had put up the building in her hometown for my children, she will take it away from me. A: That is not true. At the time you came to procure the allocation note from me, I did not know you were married to the Defendant. You came with Alex Nsiah Akoto, the one who was then in occupation of the land but the land belongs to the Bepoase stool. [emphasis on the underlined] 34. From DW3’s own mouth, he did not even know the Plaintiff was married to the Defendant at the time he allotted the land in dispute to him. More so, the allocation paper (Exhibit A) which he gave the Plaintiff has the Plaintiff’s name only as the allotee. Clearly, DW3’s testimony that the land in dispute was purchased by the Page 30 of 60 Defendant and the Plaintiff is not supported by the evidence. 35. Further, the Defendant led no evidence to prove how much proceeds they realized from the cocoa farm and over what period, and how much of it they used to purchase the land in dispute. Despite the Plaintiff’s denial that they jointly worked on the cocoa farm, she led no cogent evidence to prove her claim. 36. I have no doubt in my mind that the Plaintiff whom the evidence shows had at the time of acquiring the land in dispute, two welding businesses at Wiamoase and Bepoase and had assisted the Defendant to migrate her trading business from a wooden shop or kiosk into a container shop, had the financial muscle to singlehandedly acquire the land in dispute as evidenced by Exhibit A. 37. On the balance of the probabilities, I find that it is more probable that the Plaintiff singlehandedly acquired the land in dispute without proceeds from the cocoa farm. Page 31 of 60 38. Issue (iii) is whether or or not the Plaintiff solely acquired the land in dispute and constructed a house thereon up to the roofing level. Whereas the Plaintiff asserts that he solely acquired the land in dispute and constructed a house thereon up to the roofing level, the Defendant asserts the land in dispute was purchased with proceeds from their jointly owned cocoa farm and that she contributed towards the construction of the house thereon. 39. To prove his case, the Plaintiff testified that he constructed the house on the land in dispute with his own resources. This ensued when the Plaintiff was cross- examined: Q: I also put it to you that it was also proceeds from our cocoa farm that we used to construct the building on Plot Q 121. A: That is not true. 40. PW2 is a mason resident at Wiamoase. He testified that one day, the Plaintiff approached him and asked him to construct a residential accommodation for him at Bepoase. Page 32 of 60 He told the Plaintiff to mould blocks for the construction of the house which he did and he constructed the building up to roofing level and the Plaintiff paid him all his money for the work done. He said he was engaged by the Plaintiff who duly paid for his services on daily basis. Part of what transpired during PW2’s cross-examination is reproduced below: Q: Do you know me? A: I got to know you through the Plaintiff. Q: Who used to fetch water for you when you were constructing the house? A: Anytime I am about to work, I inform the Plaintiff and when I arrive, I see water in a container there which I use. When the water runs out, I again inform the Plaintiff who sends some children to refill the container with more water. Q: I am putting it to you that I am the person who filled the container with the water that you used to come to meet. Page 33 of 60 A: I cannot tell because I never met you at the building site. Q: I am also putting it to you that the children who fetched the water for you when it run out are my children. A: I cannot tell. Q: Are you telling this Court that you never saw me at the building site? A: I have seen you at the site before but you did not come to fetch water. I knew you were the Plaintiff’s wife and that you came to supervise the work. Q: I am putting it to you that at the time you were constructing the building, I was legally married to the Plaintiff. A: I cannot tell. Q: I am putting it to you that because of the nature of my work, I fetched the water at dawn into the container which you used for the construction. Page 34 of 60 A: I cannot tell because you were not sleeping at the construction site. I came to meet the container filled with water and when it runs out, I call the Plaintiff to have it refilled. Q: I am putting it to you that I was the one who pleaded with the Plaintiff to acquire the plot of land and construct the building for me. A: I cannot tell. Q: I put it to you that the building you were constructing is a joint property of the Plaintiff and me. A: I cannot tell. I only came to construct the building. 41. The Defendant testified that she and the Plaintiff built the house on the land in dispute with proceeds from cocoa and during the construction of the building, she fetched water and cooked for the mason and did all the work required of her as a wife. This ensued when the Defendant was cross-examined: Page 35 of 60 Q: I put it to you that you did not fetch water for the construction of the House, Plot No. Q 121 Bepoase because I engaged workers to do that. A: That is not true. 42. I have already found on issue (i) and (ii) that the Plaintiff singlehandedly acquired the cocoa farm and the land in dispute. Despite the Plaintiff’s denial that the Defendant contributed in any way towards the construction of the house on the land in dispute, the Defendant failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove her claim. It is common knowledge that a mason alone, in this case, PW2, could not have constructed the house. He would need the assistance of labourers and other skilled workers to undertake various activities as part of the construction process. Yet, the Defendant failed to call any of the labourers or skilled workers to testify in support of her case. Further, the Defendant led no evidence to prove how much proceeds they realized from the cocoa farm and over what period, and how much of it they used for the construction of the house. PW2’s testimony that he had seen the Defendant on the land in dispute before and that Page 36 of 60 he thought she was there to supervise the work is no proof of her contribution. There is no evidence of any instruction, direction or support the Defendant gave to PW2 or any of the other workmen who may have been there when she visited the land in dispute during the ongoing construction. In my thoughtful view, merely showing up on the land in dispute during the construction of the house without more will not suffice as supervision. 43. On the balance of the probabilities, I find that it is more probable that the Plaintiff singlehandedly constructed the house on the land in dispute up to roofing level. 44. Issue (iv) is whether or not the Plaintiff gave the land in dispute to the Defendant as alimony. Whereas the Plaintiff denies that he gave the land in dispute with the then uncompleted house thereon to the Defendant as alimony, the Defendant asserts otherwise. 45. To prove his case, the Plaintiff testified that his marriage to the Defendant broke down beyond reconciliation and the marital drinks were returned to him. He said both Page 37 of 60 families met when the marriage fell on rocks and the conclusion was reached that he should ‘push off’ the Defendant with cash of GH¢1,000 and the container shop with goods to support her livelihood while he continued to support the maintenance of their child, which the Defendant accepted. He said he never gave the property in dispute to the Defendant as alimony and that the Defendant’s claim that he promised to give the documents to her was false and a figment of her imagination. He testified further that he does not owe the Defendant anything after they have gone their separate ways and that he never promised to give the documents to the property in dispute to her or anybody to be given to her. 46. PW3 knows the Plaintiff who is his grandson and the Defendant who is his relation. He testified that he was the one who went to Bepoase with one Dauda (deceased) to mediate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in respect of their marriage which had broken down. At the meeting with the Defendant, the issue of the house was raised and when he went back and met the Plaintiff and told him about it, the Plaintiff indicated that it was the container Page 38 of 60 with goods and GH¢1,000 he was giving to the Defendant as alimony. 47. On her part, DW1, the Defendant’s mother, testified that one Sunday, the Plaintiff sent two gentlemen from Wiamoase in the persons of PW3 and another, who is deceased, to meet her family so she sent for the Defendant who was then at church and also invited her brothers to receive them. PW3 and the deceased told them they had been sent by the Plaintiff to divorce the Defendant. They also told them the Plaintiff had sent them to present GH¢1,000 and the uncompleted building on Plot Q. 121 as alimony. There, the Defendant asked for the allocation paper and was told it would be submitted later. Till date, the Plaintiff has refused to provide the allocation paper despite divorcing the Defendant. 48. DW2 testified that one Sunday morning, the Plaintiff sent two gentlemen from Wiamoase in the persons of PW3 and Dauda (deceased) to Bepoase to meet the head of the Bepoase Akorna family. He sent for the Defendant who was then at church and also invited his sister (DW1) and Page 39 of 60 other family members to receive them. PW3 and the deceased stated that they had been sent by the Plaintiff to divorce the Defendant. They also told them the Plaintiff had sent them to present GH¢1,000 and the uncompleted house on Plot No. Q 121 on Bepoase Stool Land as alimony. There, he asked the Defendant if they should accept them and she answered in the affirmative that they should, for the welfare of their child and because the Plaintiff had been complaining of economic hardship. In response, he ordered for Schnapps to show their acceptance of the alimony and PW3 and the late Dauda accepted it after which they left. 49. There is evidence that the person whom the Plaintiff sent with PW3 to the Defendant’s family is the Plaintiff’s father whom the Plaintiff referred to as Dauda Agyei when he cross-examined DW3 on 14th February 2024. Contrary to PW3’s testimony in paragraph 5 of his Witness Statement that they went to see the Defendant’s family to mediate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant whose marriage had broken down, there is evidence that that was not the case. Rather, PW3 and the late Dauda were sent by the Page 40 of 60 Plaintiff to go and dissolve his marriage to the Defendant. This ensued during PW3’s cross-examination: Q: In paragraph 5 of your witness statement, you stated that you came to mediate between the Plaintiff and I in respect of the marriage which had broken down. I put it to you that you did not come to do any mediation but rather, you came to dissolve it. A: That is true. We came to dissolve it. [Emphasis on the underlined] 50. As to what the Plaintiff through PW3 and the late Dauda presented to the Defendant as ‘push off’ or compensation, the Defendant, DW1 and DW2, all of whom were present at the meeting testified and maintained that it was the sum of GH¢1,000 and the uncompleted building on Plot Q. 121. PW3 also concedes under cross-examination that they indeed told the Defendant and her family members present that the Plaintiff had offered her the uncompleted building on Plot Q. 121 as ‘push off’. This ensued when PW3 was cross-examined: Page 41 of 60 Q: Can you tell the court the compensation you gave me when you dissolved the marriage? A: GH¢1,000.00 and the container in which you were plying your trade. As for the house, Dauda and I were the ones who told you to take it. Upon our return, Dauda went to see the Plaintiff and told him what happened when we went to dissolve the marriage. There, the Plaintiff told Dauda that he did not include the house as part of the compensation. On hearing that, Dauda, told me to go with him to Bepoase to go and see the Defendant to inform her that we had committed a blunder and that the house was not part of the compensation. But I asked him to wait and that the Defendant was likely to come and see me within three days. True to my words, the Defendant came to visit me in three days and requested for the documentation on the house. It was there that I told her that the plaintiff said he did not tell us to give her the house as compensation. On hearing that the Defendant said she had heard me and that she would take the matter to Court. Page 42 of 60 Q: Do you still maintain that the compensation you gave me when you came to dissolve the marriage was the container and the GH¢1,000.00 only? A: Yes, I stand by it. Q: I put it to you that when you came to dissolve the marriage, you told me that the Plaintiff had asked you to give me as compensation, the sum of GH¢1,000.00 and a house which we had jointly acquired/built. A: That is not true. I do not know anything about the house that you are talking about. Q: So, which house did you tell this Court that you and Dauda mistakenly gave me as compensation, without the plaintiff’s approval? A: I have heard that you and the Plaintiff have a house at Bepoase but I do not know the exact location. Q: I am putting it to you that because you and the plaintiff failed to honour the Bepoasehene’s invitation, that is why the Bepoasehene authorized me to go ahead and roof the building and stay in. Page 43 of 60 A: No one summoned me before the Bepoasehene. You and the Bepoasehene’s linguist came to see me and told me the Bepoasehene wanted to see me and Dauda. I directed you and the linguist to go and see Dauda and when you went, he said he was indisposed at that time but when he is well, he will come and call me so that we will go and see the Bepoasehene together. About 5 weeks later, you came with the linguist again to invite me alone to go and see the Bepoasehene since Dauda was still sick. I told the linguist I could not see the Bepoasehene without Dauda. The linguist left and I never heard from them again. Three weeks later, Halidu, a friend of the Bepoasehene came to my house with a mobile phone and told me the Bepoasehene wanted to have a discussion with me. In my presence, Halidu phoned the Bepoasehene and handed me the phone to talk to him. After exchanging pleasantries, the Bepoasehene told me he only needed answers to two questions. I confirmed to Bepoasehene that indeed when we went to dissolve the marriage we gave the house to the Defendant as compensation. The Bepoasehene told me that was all he wanted to hear from me. Since then, I Page 44 of 60 have not heard from the Bepoasehene. [Emphasis on the underlined] 51. The cross-examination above elicits the glaring inconsistencies in PW3’s testimony. In one breadth, he admits that they gave a house to the Defendant as ‘push off’, although he claims it was without the Plaintiff’s authorization. In another, he claims they did not give the Defendant a house at all. Yet another breadth, he claims he does not know anything about the house and then goes on to state that he only heard the Plaintiff and the Defendant had a house at Bepoase but he did not know its exact location. The inconsistencies pointed out in PW3’s testimony relate to a material issue in contention and show that PW3 is not a credible witness. Also, PW3’s failure to mention in his Witness Statement exactly what they presented to the Defendant as ‘push off’ before in his words in paragraph 6, “…the issue of the house was raised…” shows he was being evasive. 52. More so, the Plaintiff’s claim that he rather gave the Defendant the container shop stocked with goods does not Page 45 of 60 find favor with the Court. There is undisputed evidence that prior to their marriage, the Defendant used to sell provisions in a wooden shop or kiosk. There is further undisputed evidence that the Plaintiff supported the Defendant to migrate her provisions business into a container shop constructed by the Plaintiff. There is however no evidence before this Court that the Plaintiff’s support to the Defendant was conditional upon being a part owner of the Defendant’s provisions business. There is also incontrovertible evidence from the Plaintiff and the Defendant that during their marriage, they did not put their monies together, neither were they accountable to each other concerning their incomes and earnings. All these show that the Plaintiff had no share or interest in the Defendant’s provisions business and therefore, he could not have given same as ‘push off’ or compensation to the Defendant. For one cannot give what he does not have. This is expressed in the maxim, “nemo dat quod non habet”. In my opinion, if two things were presented to the Defendant as ‘push off’, it could not have included the provisions business. Page 46 of 60 53. PW3 and the late Dauda were sent by the Plaintiff with instructions to go and announce to the Defendant’s family the dissolution of his marriage to the Defendant and present the ‘push off’ or compensation he was giving the Defendant. There being no evidence that PW3 and the late Dauda knew or were in a position to know the Plaintiff’s financial capabilities and wealth, in my view, they could not present anything as ‘push off’ apart what the Plaintiff would have expressly told them. From PW3’s own mouth, he had only heard that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had a house at Bepoase but he did not know its exact location. This means that he had never seen the said house and therefore, could not confirm the accuracy or otherwise of what he had heard. Yet, he wants this Court to believe that they went ahead to present the said uncompleted house as ‘push off’ and coincidentally the said house does really exist at Bepoase? I find implausible, PW3’s claim that he and the late Dauda presented the uncompleted house without the Plaintiff’s authorization. Equally, I find implausible, his claim under cross-examination that he and the late Dauda presented GH¢1,000 and the container shop to the Defendant as ‘push off’. Page 47 of 60 54. Also, the Plaintiff’s testimony in his evidence-in-chief that both families met and a conclusion was reached that he should ‘push off’ the Defendant with GH¢1,000 and the container shop stocked with goods, which the Defendant accepted, cannot be true in the light of the corroborative evidence from the Defendant, DW1, DW2 and PW3. In Banahene v. Adinkra & Ors [1976] 1 GLR 346, the court stated that, “The rule is that where the evidence of one party on an issue in a suit is corroborated by witnesses of his opponent, whilst that of his opponent on the same issue stands uncorroborated even by his own witnesses, a court ought not to accept the uncorroborated version in preference to the corroborated one unless for some good reason (which must appear on the face of the judgment) the court found the corroborated version incredible or impossible. See also Agyeiwaa v. P & T Corporation [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 985. 55. The Plaintiff urges on the Court at page 11 of his written Address that DW2’s testimony about the dissolution of the marriage is hearsay and should be disbelieved because Page 48 of 60 when the Plaintiff put to him under cross-examination that he and the Defendant were married in 2018 and dissolved it in 2020, he answered that he came from Kumasi to see them living together and later when he returned, he was told the marriage had collapsed. First, if the Plaintiff was certain that DW2 was not present at the meeting when the dissolution of the marriage was announced, he would have challenged him on that fact during his cross- examination, but he failed to do so. Secondly, DW2’s testimony about what happened on the said date that the marriage was dissolved is corroborated by DW1 and the Defendant. Even the Defendant who was party to the marriage, when the Plaintiff put to her under cross- examination that their marriage was dissolved in 2020, answered that she could not remember. Since the date on which the parties got married and the date that their marriage was dissolved are not material issues for determination in this trial, the inconsistency pointed out, in my view is immaterial or minor and does not detract from DW2’s testimony which I find credible. See Effisah v. Ansah [2005-2006] SCGLR 943 @ 960; Kwame Bonsu v. Page 49 of 60 Kwame Kusi & Anor, Civil Appeal No. J4/14/2009 dated 4th November, 2009 (unreported). 56. There is undisputed evidence that the Plaintiff did not personally meet with the Defendant and her family. He sent PW3 and the late Dauda who met with the Defendant and her family and announced the dissolution of their marriage and presented GH¢1,000 and the uncompleted house on the land in dispute to the Defendant as ‘push off.’ According to DW2, on hearing that, he asked the Defendant if the ‘push off’ should be accepted and the Defendant answered yes. Based on the Defendant’s affirmative response, he sent for Schnapps which he gave to PW3 and the late Dauda which they accepted and left. Evidently, there was an offer and acceptance leading to an agreement. There is further incontrovertible evidence from the Plaintiff that the marital drinks have been returned to him signifying the dissolution of their marriage. 57. In my considered view, PW3 and the late Dauda acted as agents for the Plaintiff. Therefore, the ordinary rules of agency relationship would apply in this case. In Madam Page 50 of 60 Selina v. Agyeman Duah & Anor [2015] DLCA3143, Torkornoo JA (as she then was) said, “When one party is alleged to have ‘mandated’ or ‘instructed’ another to deal with a third party on their behalf, the law in context is simply the law of agency. An agent is a person who is ‘mandated’ or ‘instructed’ to place his principal in contractual relationship with others.” The book, “Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency” defines agency as “a fiduciary relationship which exists between two persons, one of whom expressly or impliedly consents that the other should act on his behalf so as to affect his relations with third parties, and the other of who similarly consents so to act or so acts”. 58. An agency relationship may arise by express, implied or apparent authority. Express authority is when the authority is expressly granted, often in writing. Implied authority derives from the relationship between the parties, nature and customs of the business and the circumstances surrounding the act in question. Apparent authority is inferred when a principal, by words or conduct, leads a third party to believe that the agent has authority, when in Page 51 of 60 fact the agent does not. This is sometimes referred to as agency by estoppel. In State v. Asantehene’s Divisional Court B1; Ex-parte Kusada [1963] 2 GLR 238, Crabbe JSC quoting Lord Cranworth in Pole v. Leask [1863] 33 L. J. Ch. 155 defined agency based on estoppel as: ‘‘Where one has so acted as from his conduct to lead another to believe that he has appointed someone to act as his agent and knows that other person is about to act on that other person’s behalf, then unless he interposes, he will, in general be estopped from disputing the agency, though in fact no agency really existed’’. 59. Section 26 of NRCD 323 on estoppel by own statement or conduct provides that, “Except as otherwise provided by law, including a rule of equity, when a party has by his own statement, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, the truth of that thing shall be conclusively presumed against that party or his successors in interest in any proceedings between that party or his successors in interest and such relying person or his successors in interest.” Page 52 of 60 60. In John Adu v. Charles Kwadwo Korankyi & Anor, [High Court (Commercial Division), Kumasi], Suit No. OCC 202/2015 dated 23rd July, 2018 (unreported), Osei- Hwere J had this to say, “In agency, if a party by his words or conduct has allowed a party to appear to the outside world to be his agent, with the result that outsiders deal with him as his agent, that person cannot afterwards be allowed to repudiate this apparent authority if to do so would cause injustice to third parties or to the agent himself, then that person is deemed as having actually authorised the agent. In agency by estoppel, no relationship may exist between the parties but by the operation of the doctrine of estoppel a relationship of agent and principal may be established between them. The principle may also operate where an agent has authority but has exceeded it. This is because an apparent or ostensible authority may be resorted to augment the agent’s actual power.” 61. One of the incidents of dissolution of marriage in Ghana is the payment of compensation or ‘push off’ or alimony Page 53 of 60 by one party to the other. In this case, the Plaintiff instructed PW3 and the late Dauda to go and see the Defendant’s family and announce to them the dissolution of his marriage to the Defendant and present them with what he was giving the Defendant as ‘push off’ or compensation. By sending PW3 and the late Dauda on that mission or assignment, the Plaintiff made the Defendant and her family believe that the duo had the authority to do and say whatever they did or said at the said meeting and acting upon such belief, the Defendant’s family accepted the dissolution of the marriage and returned the marital drink to the Plaintiff. Upon the same belief, the Defendant at the meeting requested the allocation paper covering the land in dispute and was told it would be submitted later. There is evidence of the Defendant’s subsequent efforts to obtain the allocation paper from the Plaintiff which have not been successful. Therefore, even if the duo presented the then uncompleted house on the land in dispute as ‘push off’ without the Plaintiff’s authorization, their actions are binding on the Plaintiff by virtue of the apparent authority. Page 54 of 60 62. At page 9 of his written Address, the Plaintiff states “The defendant and the Bepoasehene did not hear directly from the plaintiff that he was giving the disputed house to the defendant.” Based on this statement, can it be said that because the Defendant and her family did not directly hear from the Plaintiff that he had dissolved the marriage, the marriage was never dissolved and thus, still subsists? The Plaintiff has not denied that PW3 and the late Dauda acted on his behalf when they went to dissolve the marriage. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot approbate and reprobate. He cannot accept in part, what PW3 and the late Dauda did on his behalf at the meeting with the Defendant and her family when it favors him, but reject the part which he now finds unfavorable. 63. There is evidence from the Defendant that when she was subsequently informed that the Plaintiff said he did not give the uncompleted house to her as ‘push off’, she was willing to give back the house if the Plaintiff would give her additional money. Yet, the Plaintiff spurned the opportunity. This can be gleaned from the Defendant’s cross-examination of PW3 below: Page 55 of 60 Q: I put it to you that the house now belongs to me because you gave it to me as compensation, and even when you told me you mistakenly gave it to me, and I asked that the Plaintiff should increase the monetary compensation he gave me, so that I would not keep it, he failed to do so. A: I do not know if it belongs to you. [Emphasis on the underlined] 64. PW3 testified under cross-examination that three days after the dissolution of the marriage, the Defendant came to visit him and requested the documentation on the uncompleted house. In his evidence-in-chief, he testified that it was during that visit that he told the Defendant that the Plaintiff said he did not give her the house as ‘push off’ but rather, the container and GH¢1,000. He said on hearing that, the Defendant told him she was going to talk to the Plaintiff to add extra money to the GH¢1,000. In his presence, the Defendant phoned the Plaintiff and after their conversation, told him that the Plaintiff said he was not giving her the house as alimony and for that matter, the Plaintiff ought to add extra money to the GH¢1,000 Page 56 of 60 and the container. There, the Defendant expressed her desire to seek redress. 65. On the balance of the probabilities, I find that it is more probable that the Plaintiff gave the land in dispute with the then uncompleted house thereon to the Defendant as ‘push off’ or alimony. 66. Lastly, I shall treat issue (v), on whether or not the land in dispute belongs to the Plaintiff. However, issue (vi) will not be treated as there is no additional issue arising out of the pleadings and evidence for consideration. 67. I must state that I find the Plaintiff’s claim that he was constructing the house on the land in dispute for his children an afterthought intended to arouse the sympathy of the Court. There is evidence before this Court that the Plaintiff bought the land in dispute in his own name. See Exhibit A. He is thus, the owner of same. His decision to construct a house thereon purportedly for his children does not change the fact that he is the owner of the land. Having bought the cocoa farm in the name of his son, Abdulai Mohammed, the Plaintiff clearly knows what to Page 57 of 60 do when he wants a property to be seen as belonging to anyone apart from him. 68. Further, I must state that having given the uncompleted house on the land in dispute to the Defendant, the Defendant did not need the permission of anyone, including DW3 to roof and occupy it. According to the Defendant, she reported the matter to DW3 for redress because the Plaintiff refused to give her the documentation covering the house after he had given it to her as compensation. The evidence shows that the Plaintiff has still not given the documentation to the Defendant. The fact that the Plaintiff did not give the document covering the land in dispute to PW3 and the late Dauda to be given to the Defendant concurrently as they presented the house as ‘push off’ does not negate the fact that it was indeed given to the Defendant by the Plaintiff through them. In my view, the documents evidencing the change of ownership of the land in dispute could be prepared subsequently. 69. Having already found on issue (iv) that the Plaintiff gave to the Defendant, the land in dispute with the then Page 58 of 60 uncompleted house thereon as ‘push off’ or alimony, I hold that the land in dispute does not belong to the Plaintiff. 70. The evidence shows that the Plaintiff is a man of considerable wealth. He owned three welding businesses and a cocoa farm (which he bought in his son’s name) at the time he dissolved his marriage to the Defendant. He has since added an agro inputs business. He has a child with the Defendant and therefore despite the short period of their marriage, I do not find it unusual that he could have given the uncompleted house to the Defendant as ‘push off’. It seems to me that he is only pained because the Defendant has remarried and he cannot get over the possibility that the Defendant’s new husband could be living with her in the said house. 71. Nevertheless, since the Defendant made no counterclaim, it means the only reliefs to be determined in this suit are those claimed by the Plaintiff. On the totality of the evidence adduced, the Plaintiff’s case fails in its entirety Page 59 of 60 and same is dismissed. Costs of GH¢5,000 is awarded against the Plaintiff. SGD. HH WINNIE AMOATEY-OWUSU CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE PARTIES AND REPRESENTATION: 1. PLAINTIFF PRESENT AND SELF-REPRESENTED 2. DEFENDANT PRESENT AND SELF-REPRESENTED Page 60 of 60