Awere Vrs Boadi (A11/331/20) [2023] GHACC 941 (29 March 2023)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD IN KUMASI ON WENESDAY THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PRISCILLA DAPAAH MIREKU (MRS.), CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. SUIT NO. A11/331/20 NANA KOFI SIKA AWERE: PLAINTIFF VRS: MARGARET BOADI : DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE The plaintiff alleges that he rented two uncompleted stores by the road side at Kromoase from the Defendant at a rent of One Hundred and Fifty Ghana Cedis (GHC150.00) a month which he paid Nine Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC9000.00) to cater for 5 years and he completed the shops for the running of a spot. The plaintiff avers that he later realized he needed a bigger space to run his business and thus spoke to the defendant through her brother for the sale of her land just behind the store. That the defendant agreed to the sale and gave the plaintiff the go ahead to commence redevelopment on the land as same was used as a refuse dump. The plaintiff further avers that he spent One Million Cedis (GHC1,000,000.00) to develop the place by constructing a modern swimming pool, a restaurant, a club house and building to accommodate the workers and offices. That the entire work took about three months and the defendant was at that time in Canada but had given the tacit assurance that she will sell the land in dispute to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that upon the return of the defendant to Ghana and upon seeing how the place had developed refused to sell the land to him as promised but rather told him, she will instead lease the place to him so they entered into a lease agreement for five years with option of renewal. Thus they mutually agreed on Twenty-Five Thousand Cedis(GHC25,000.00) as consideration for the period from 1st January, 2013 to 1st January, 2018. That before the lease will expire, the defendant entered the land and started a construction on same claiming to build an extension of her guest house. According to the plaintiff he confronted the defendant and the defendant informed him, she was no longer interested in renewing the lease and that she will value the structures the plaintiff had built on her land and pay for same. That even though the value the defendant claims her valuers gave to the developments were only GHC370,000.00, he agreed to same but the defendant failed to pay. The plaintiff further claims that, the defendant rather told him to remove his infrastructures on the land as she was not going to pay for anything. That the defendant after asking him to move out has started building aggressively to distract the business of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims the defendant wants to unjustly enrich herself from his developments and instituted this action against the defendant praying for the following reliefs; a. A declaration that the parties to the lease agreement dated 1st January 2013 intended for a renewal of the agreement for another five years as condition precedent to the agreement. b. A declaration that the conduct of the defendant in seeking to throw out the plaintiff from the land after the first five years without recourse to their agreement is a calculated ploy to overreach the plaintiff to the advantage of the defendant unlawfully. c. An order of the court compelling the defendant to renew the parties earlier lease agreement dated 1st January 2013 for another five (5) years in compliance with the agreement. d. An order for an independent valuation for the development made by the plaintiff for onward sale to the defendant. e. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, her assigns, agents, privies and all manner of persons claiming from and or acting by or through her from in anyway impeding the plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment and usage of the premises. THE DEFENDANT’S CASE; The case of the defendant is that, save that the tenancy agreement covering the twin- storeroom for a period of five years expired on 31st December, 2017 which was extended orally for a period of one year two months from 1st Janaury, 2018 to 28th February 2019, she sent the plaintiff notice to yield vacant possession of the stores to her after the tenancy expiration but the plaintiff has failed to do same or pay rent. That the plaintiff is indebted to her rent outstanding of One Thousand Eight Hundred Cedis (GHC1,800.00) from 1st March, 2019 to 29th February, 2020. That the plaintiff paid rent of GHC7,500 for four years two months and not GHC9,000.00 for five (5) years as claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant denies that her land was used for refuse dumping and claims that, the plaintiff developed her land without any permission. According to the defendant, even though the plaintiff developed her land without her consent, she agreed to rent same to him for five years. That she does not need the structures the plaintiff hurriedly and hazardously built on her land. According to the defendant, the plaintiff agreed with her for the grant of two plots of land for a total sum of Thirty Thousand (GHC30,000.00) in leu of the rent payable for the five year period. That the defendant paid the difference of GHC5,000.00 to the plaintiff. That one of the plot was water logged and the plaintiff promised to replace same but failed to honour his promise. Thus the plaintiff owes her Fifteen Thousand Cedis (GHC15,000.00) being the cost of one of the plot. The defendant further contends that the renewal of the rent is not automatic. That since the renewal of the tenancy was dependent upon the mutual agreement between the parties, the plaintiff has adamantly refused to pay rent and has also, evidently put up provocation posturing which evinces his intention to supplant, manly manipulates, coerce and cajole her to sell her property to him, the defendant has steely decided not to renew the tenancy but to exercise her unfettered right to cause the plaintiff, by lawful means to yield vacant possession of her premises to her. The defendant counterclaims for the following; 1. (i) Recovery of the premises on Plot No. 61 Block b, Kromoase which the Defendant rented to the Plaintiff for five (5) years, per tenancy agreement dated 5th January, 2013 which agreement expired on 1st January, 2018. (ii) Recovery of GHC15,000.00 being the cost of one plot the plaintiff has refused to grant to the Defendant which sum was in lieu of half of the rent of GHC30,000.00 payable by the plaintiff for the premises which the defendant rented to him for a term of five (5) years. (iii) Interest on the sum of GHC15,000.00 from 1st January, 2013 till date of final payment. (iv) Recovery of GHC13,000.00 being the outstanding rent of the premises for the period of 1st January, 2018 to 29th February, 2020 which the Plaintiff has refused to pay to the Defendant. (v) Interest on the sum of GHC13,000.00 from 1st March, 2020 till date of final payment. (vi) Recovery of mense profit in respect of the premises. 2. (i) Recovery of the twin-storeroom on Plot No. 61 Block B, Kromoas which the Defendant rented to the Plaintiff for five (5) years per tenancy agreement dated 16th January, 2013, which Agreement expired on 3ist December, 2017 and orally extended to 28th February, 2019. (ii) Recovery of GHC1,800.00 being outstanding rent of the twin storeroom forthe period 1st March, 2019 to 29th February, 2020 which the plaintiff has refused to pay to the Defendant. (iii) Interest on the sum of GHC1,800.00 from 1st March, 2020 till date of final payment. (iv) Recovery of Mense Protit in respect of the Twin-storeroom. 3. Perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiff, his agents, servants, privies or any other person(s) claiming through him from dealing in and/or interfering with the Defendant’s quiet enjoyment of her land, Plot No. 61 Block B, Kromoasi. 4. An order for the Plaintiff to remove, at his own cost, his unwanted and unwarranted structures which he hurriedly and haphazardly developed on the premises of the Defendant without her permission; or in the alternative, an order for assessing the cost of the removal of the structures for the plaintiff to pay the same to the Defendant to enable the Defendant to remove them. THE ISSUES; The issues set down for trial by the plaintiff were as follows; 1. Whether or not the area in dispute was originally used as a site for dumping refuse prior to the plaintiff’s development on the land. 2. Whether or not the Defendant agreed to the Plaintiff’s developments on the land in dispute with the assurance of sale of the land to plaintiff and later recanted after the development on the land by the plaintiff. 3. Whether or not the issue of renewal of the agreement was intended as a condition to the rental of the premises in dispute due to the plaintiff’s developments on the land after the Defendant had recanted on their earlier oral agreement for the sale of the land to the plaintiff. 4. Whether or not the Defendant sought to throw out the plaintiff from the land in dispute even before the lapse of the 5 years. 5. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his reliefs. 6. Any other issue(s) raised by the pleadings. The issues also set down by the defendant were also as follows; i. Whether or not the Lease dated 5th January, 2013 commencing from 1st January, 2013 ending on 1st January, 2018 and covering the open space behind the shops of the defendant was intended for renewal thereof for another term of five (5) years as a condition precedent to the agreement. ii. Whether or not after the expiration of the lease on 1st January, 2018, the plaintiff has refused to vacate the premises but has refused to pay rent as statutory tenant. iii. Whether or not the expiry on 28th February, 2019 of the tenancy agreement dated 16th January, 2013 which was extended up to 28th January, 2019 covering defendant’s twin-storeroom, the plaintiff has refused to vacate the premises, but has refused to pay rent as statutory tenant. iv. Whether or not the plaintiff has refused to pay to the Defendant GHC15,000 being the cost of one plot the plaintiff has refused to grant to the defendant which sum was in lieu of half of the rent of GHC30,000.00 payable by the Plaintiff for the premises which the defendant rented to the Plaintiff for a term of five (5) years. These issues were adopted by the court as issues set down for trial. BURDEN OF PROOF; The burden of proof in civil actions is proof by the preponderance of probabilities. Section 12(1) of the Evidence Act 1975, (NRCD 322) provides that, “except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by preponderance of probabilities.” Section 11 (1) of the Evidence Act 1975(NRCD 323) also provides that, “For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling against him on the issue.” In the case of Zambrama vs. Segbezi [1991] 2 GLR 221 @ 246 it was held that, A person who makes an averment or assertion, which is denied by his opponent, has a burden to establish that his averment or assertion is true. And he does not discharge this burden from which the fact or facts he asserted can properly and safely be inferred. The nature of each averment or assertion determines the degree and nature of the burden. The Court of Appeal in a unanimous decision allowing the appeal in the case of The Executive Director (Economic & Organised Crime Office) Narcotic Control Board v. Nayele Ampete & Anor [2022] 176 G. M. J. 117 C. A at 121, states; 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 and he does not discharge this burden unless he leads admissible and credible evidence from which the fact or facts he asserts can be properly and safely inferred; failure of which the assertion is not true. Excerpt otherwise provided by law and until it is shifted, a party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence of which is essential to the claim or defence he is asserting. … furthermore, it must be noted that a party whose pleadings raises essential to the success of the case assumes the burden of proving such an issue and it is incumbent on the party to produce admissible and credible evidence so as to avoid a ruling against him and the absence of the proof will attract or earn such a ruling. The burden of proof will first be on the plaintiff to prove his case by the preponderance of probabilities. The defendant also counterclaiming for the reliefs aforementioned will also have the same burden as the plaintiff to prove his case by the preponderance of probabilities. Both parties cannot rely on the weakness of the opponent’s case to win their case. EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE; The Plaintiff was called upon to prove his case and in doing so, he testified on his own behalf and called four other witnesses to do same. The plaintiff alleges the defendant promised to sell her the land behind the stores but refused and leased to him for five years. The defendant denies promising to sell the said land to the plaintiff but rather rented it to him when she saw that he has developed same without her consent. Both parties called witnesses to buttress their claim but this court is of the view that, whether there was such promise or not, it will not be material. This is because if indeed there was an oral agreement of the sale of the aforementioned land, the refusal of the defendant to sell same would have been a breach of contract and the plaintiff could have taken steps to enforce the alleged agreement. Also if indeed there was no such contract and the plaintiff developed the land without prior consent from the defendant, she also could have taken steps to recover the land from the plaintiff. However none of the parties took any steps but rather entered into an agreement for the rent or lease of the premises for five year(s). In respect to the twin stores, the plaintiff tendered a tenancy agreement dated 16th July 2021 (marked Exhibit ‘A’) taking effect from 1st August 2012 with monthly deduction of One Hundred and Fifty Cedis (GH150.00). This means that the plaintiff paid Seven Thousand Five Hundred (GHC7,500.00) as indicated in the agreement and not Nine Thousand Cedis (GHC9000.00) as alleged by the plaintiff which will cover fifty (50) months that is, four years, two months and not five years. There is no evidence that shows that indeed the plaintiff paid Ghc9000.00 and proof of same is very important especially when the defendant denies that the plaintiff paid GHC9,000.00. The plaintiff’s first witness however tenders another agreement that shows that an amount of Three Thousand Six Hundred Cedis (GHC3,600.00) was paid by the plaintiff as rent. In the case of KUSI & KUSI V. BONSU [2010] SCGLR 60, the majority of the Supreme Court held that, facts recited in document conclusively presumed to be true between the parties and all persons claiming through them under section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1975 – facts in written document creating estoppel binding parties and their successors. Section 25(1) of the Evidence act, 1975 (NRCD 323) provides that, “ Except as otherwise provided by law, including a rule of equity the facts recited in a written document are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties to the instrument, or their successors in interest. Exhibit ‘A’ does not state when the tenancy will expired but PW1, testified that an extra amount of Three Thousand Six Hundred (GHC3,600.00) was paid to the defendant extending the expiring date of the rent and tendered Exhibit ‘F’ as proof of same. The Plaintiff first witness George Kofi Sika Junior (PW1) admits that the rent for the twin shores was to expired on 28th February, 2019 under cross examination but alleges that the defendant took GHC1,400.00 from them to fix an extension in front of their shop to stop rain water from entering their shop but never did so. That later, the defendant agreed to use the said GHC1,400.00 as rent which extended the period for the rent of the twin shops to December, 2019. The defendant denies the payment of the GHC1,400.00 to her and the plaintiff did not lead any further evidence to prove the said assertion denied by the defendant. The defendant rather tendered a letter dated 1st September, 2018 to the plaintiff marked as Exhibit ‘3’ informing the plaintiff that when his rent expires, she will not be renewing it. In the case of Ackah v. Pergah Transport Ltd and Others [2010] SCGLR 728 at 736, it was held that, “It is a basic principle of the law on evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail.” This court finds that, the tenancy for the twin stores expired on February 2019 and not December 2019. Thus, the plaintiff is indebted to the defendant rent for the twin stores from March 2019 to date as he has not given vacant possession of the twin shops to the Defendant and still in possession. The plaintiff claims that after he rented the stores above that he realized he will need certain facilities to run his business so he approached the defendant through her brother to buy the land behind the stores. The plaintiff claims the defendant agreed but relented on her promise when she saw the developments. This claim has been denied by the defendant. According to the plaintiff it was because of the plaintiff’s promise to sell the land to him that he made those developments. The issue as to whether the land in dispute was used as a refuse dump site is not material. What is relevant is whether or not the lease agreement entered by the parties requires automatic renewal. This is because there is no disagreement to the fact that both parties entered into the lease agreement for five years. There is also no issue as to whether the lease has expired but the issue arises when the plaintiff claims the agreement was entered to subject to the renewal clause because of the developments he had made while the defendant claim there was a renewal clause but as a lessor she determines the terms and the plaintiff refused to pay up the new rent and also give up vacant possession after she did not hear from him. Exhibit ‘D’ which was tendered by the plaintiff is headed lease agreement, but the agreement describes the plaintiff as a tenant and the defendant as landlady. The agreement also uses lease and rent interchangeably. From the language of the document, the agreement is a tenancy agreement and not a lease but the use of the word lease shows the parties intention to enter into a lease agreement. Per Exhibit ‘D’, the agreement was to run for five years starting from January 1st, 2013 and ending on 1st of January, 2018. The agreement also states “The Land/space in question is renewable after a period of five (5) years and that; the renewing is dependent on the agreement of both parties. Length and charges for renewal may/may not change as the landlady wishes.” A lease agreement is a contract for the lease of land and thus the terms of the contract has to be by mutual agreement. Also it is trite that in interpreting a document, the said document must be read in whole to identify the true intentions of the parties. The parties per their tenancy agreement indicated that, the agreement was renewable upon expiration subject to the mutual agreement of the parties. The Supreme Court in the case of Mireku & Tetteh (Decd), In Re Mireku v. Tetteh [2011] 1 SCGLR 520 indicated that an option of renewal can only be conferred on a tenant by express mutual agreement of the parties and ought to be expressed in the lease agreement which has been done so accordingly in this agreement. Thus, the agreement between the parties was subject to renewal upon mutual agreement of the parties. However the Plaintiff goes further to testify that before the expiration of the agreement, the defendant entered the land and started constructing a structure which will affect his business and he confronted her. That the defendant indicated to her that she was not interested in the renewal after the expiration of the lease and will pay the plaintiff for the developments he has made on the land. Same has been denied by the defendant and further prays that the plaintiff is ordered to remove his structures from her land. The evidence before the court clearly shows that indeed the defendant entered the land to start expansion of her guest house before the expiration of the lease agreement. The lease agreement was for 80% of land remaining thus the defendant had not status to enter the land to develop same when she had already leased to the plaintiff and it had not expired. The defendant claims that the plaintiff was to give her two plots of land value GHc30,000.00 to offset the rent of GHC25,000.00 the plaintiff was to pay her for the lease of the space. The defendant further claims she paid the plaintiff the GHc5000.00 that became outstanding after you deduct the GHC25,000.00. The plaintiff denies same and alleges that the two plots of land was for the exchange of the land and that, the plaintiff told her if he gave her the two plots of land, she will give her land behind the shops. The plaintiff further alleges he gave up the land but the defendant later informed him that her partner was not interested in the land. The defendant admits taking possession of the land but claims she rejected one of the plots as it was water logged but the plaintiff has failed or refuse to replace same or pay her the value of the land at the time she purchase same which was GhC15,000.00. The parties give two different accounts in respect of the two plots the plaintiff allegedly gave to the defendant but I find the evidence of the defendant more probable. I find the defendant’s evidence more probable because the plaintiff in his pleading at paragraph 32 avers that the parties mutually agreed that the defendant will collect an amount of GHC25,000.000 as rent and he paid same up write but when the defendant denied same and said the plaintiff used the two plots of land as payment, the plaintiff claimed the two plots of land was for the exchange of the land in dispute. If the two plots of land were for exchange as claimed by the plaintiff, then the defendant should not have been in possession of the plot as she failed to sell the plot to the plaintiff as alleged. The plaintiff has also testified that, the defendant gave him the go ahead to build while abroad and he never said there was any agreement. In fact his evidence is that the defendant gave him the go ahead and they were to discuss the terms of the sale when she comes to Ghana. Also the evidence and exhibits before this court shows that, both parties are people of record and anytime there was payment of rent either in respect of the twin stores or the land, same was duly documented. The defendant alleges paying GHC5,000.00 to the plaintiff as the rent for the land was GHC25,000.00 and the two plots of land was GHC30,000.00. There is no documentary prove of this payment of GHC5,000.00 to the plaintiff but the evidence on record shows that the defendant is in possession of the plots of land given to her by the plaintiff. In the case of Aryee And Akakpo v. Ayaa Idrissu [2010] SCGLR 891 @ 901, it was held that, A party who counterclaims bears the burden of proving his counterclaim on the preponderance of the probabilities and would not win on that issue only because the original claim has failed. The party wins in the counterclaim on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of his opponent’s case. The defendant must therefore lead credible evidence to show that she rejected the land and indeed the plaintiff promised to replace same. The defendant claims she developed an uncompleted two-room structure on the land thereon for which the plaintiff agreed to exchange with bags of cement to the defendant he has reneged on the agreement and sold the plot to another who has completed same and living therein. The defendant attorney tendered a picture of the said structure marked as Exhibits ‘8F’ and ‘8G’. thus the plaintiff is indebted to the defendant for the sum of GHC15,000.00 being the cost of the plot of land aforementioned. The defendant tendered letters marked Exhibits ‘5’ and ‘6’ to prove to the court that when the alleged lease expired, she wrote to the plaintiff through her agents for the renewal of the lease but it was when the plaintiff failed to pay up the rent or renew the lease that she took steps to reposes her land. This assertion is denied by the Plaintiff and denies receiving any such letter. The agreements entered by the parties were for renewal upon expiration as aforementioned above and discussed. The evidence show the landlady solely determined the new rent and the period for the lease which she reduced from five years to two years which same was within her power as per the agreement but there is not from of same being communicated to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has spent so much in developing the subject matter and from the evidence from both parties, I find as fact that, the defendant knew of the developments made by the plaintiff even though she was in Canada as she had caretakers and agents who took care of her affairs. Also she not raising any objection when she came to Ghana and saw the development confirms that she consented to the development of the land. The relationship between the parties has completely deteriorated and the agreement being broken down, it is just for the developments made by plaintiff to be valued and the defendant ordered to pay for same minus the rent the plaintiff will owe the defendant for his occupation of the place after the expiration of the lease. The honourable court at the end of the case finds that, the parties to the lease agreement dated 1st January, 2013 intended for a renewal of the agreement but the agreement does not state it will be for another five years but the “Length and charges for renewal may/may not change as the landlady wishes.” This Court also finds that the renewal of the lease dated 1st January, 2013 was subject to the agreement of both parties and that it cannot be renew upon the refusal of one of the parties. That the defendant knowing this decided to take advantage of it and requested the plaintiff to remove his structures from her land and give her vacant possession when the constructions were not done at her blind side. Also the defendant breached the agreement when she entered the land before the expiration of the lease for them to have talks about renewal of same. In the case of Hansem Enterprise Ltd vrs. Swiss Africa Trading Co. [1999-2000] 1 GLR @ 4, The quantum of damages was to be determine by the loss to the respondent which could reasonably have been foreseen by the appellant at the time of the contract as likely the result from their breach to the contract. The defendant ought to have known that any breach of the agreement or non-renewal of their agreement will lead to the plaintiff suffering a loss. It is for this reason I do believe the plaintiff’s claim that, the defendant agreed to pay for the value of the structure so they go their separate ways when she entered the land before the expiration of the lease. The structures as seen in the exhibits tendered by both parties shows massive development of the land and not make shift, dangerous, hazardous structures as alleged by the defendant. The defendant entering the land before its expiration and offering to pay for the values of the structures automatically set aside the agreement between the parties and a new offer was made and same accepted by the plaintiff. It was after the time period the alleged lease had expired that the defendants demanded the plaintiff to remove his structure and go away. The letters or notices the defendant alleges she gave to the plaintiff has been denied by him and there is no other evidence proving otherwise. CONCLUSION This honourable court comes to the conclusion that, for the claims of the plaintiff, the court enters judgment for the valuation of the structures built by the plaintiff by Valuation Department of the Lands Commission, Kumasi for the defendant to pay same to the plaintiff by 31st May, 2023. The cost of the valuation will be bore by both parties. The court cannot compelled the defendant to renew the parties’ earlier lease agreement dated 1st January, 2013 for another 5 years and as stated by the plaintiff’s counsel in his address to the court filed on 20th February, 2023, it is not the duty of the court to make a new contract for the parties on terms they have not mutually agreed upon. The plaintiff’s claim for perpetual injunction is dismissed as the defendant has been ordered to pay the value of the subject matter to the plaintiff. For the counterclaim of the defendant, this honourable court enters judgment for; 1. The recovery of the twin stores on Plot No. 61 Block B as the tenancy has long expired. 2. Recovery of GH1,800 being the outstanding rent of the twin storeroom for the period of 1st March, 2019 to 29th February, 2020. 3. Recovery of rent for the twin stores on the subject matter from March 2020 till the date the plaintiff will give vacant possession at a rent of GHC150,00 per month as the rent agreed on had not been reviewed. 4. Interest on the sum GHC1,800 from February 2020 to date of final payment. 5. Interest on the rent payable for the twin stores from March 2020 till date of final payment. 6. Recovery of the premises on Plot No. 61 Block B, Kromoasi subject to the plaintiff paying the value of the structures built by the plaintiff as valued by the Court’s appointed valuer. 7. Recovery of the sum of rent payable for the premises which was GHC5,000.00 per year as the parties had not renew their agreement from March 2020 till date of final payment. 8. Interest on the said sum mentioned as rent of GHC5000.00 per year for the premises from March 2020 till date of final payment. 9. Recovery of the sum of GH15,000.00 being the cost of land the plaintiff has resold to another after he used same to pay for his rent. 10. Interest on the said sum of GhC15,000.00 from 1st January, 2013 to date of final payment. The defendant’s counter claims of reliefs 1(iv), 1(v), 1(vi), 2(iii) and 4 are dismissed. The court dismissed the defendant’s claim for mense profits because she did not lead any evidence to prove that claim but the court deemed it just for the plaintiff to pay the rent due for the premises and the shops as he is still in possession of same. Perpetual injunction is hereby placed on the plaintiff, his agents, servants, privies, or any other person(s) claiming through him from dealing in and /or interfering with the subject matter after the defendant pays off the value of the structures to the plaintiff as ordered. Both parties are to bear their own cost as they all succeeded in their claim in part. SGD. H/L PRISCILLA DAPAAH MIREKU (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT CIRCUIT COURT 2, ADUM - KUMASI 24