Mensah Vrs Sor [2023] GHADC 235 (6 July 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT SEFWI JUABOSO ON THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP SAMUEL ENTEE JNR ESQ. THE MAGISTRATE SUIT NO.: A11/28/23 Plaintiff Present Defendant Present MONICA MENSAH VS KWAKU SOR JUDGEMENT The plaintiff sues the defendant for a declaration of title to a 2 room house at Sefwi Asafo, recovery of possession of the said house, an order of ejectment of the defendant from the house and an order for maintenance of their four (4) children. It is the case of the plaintiff that she and the defendant married customarily but the marriage was dissolved sometime in the ye\ar 2022. That during the existence of the marriage they built their 2 rooms on her own land where they lived before the dissolution of the marriage. The plaintiff said they also built 5 additional rooms on her land where the other two rooms were located but the 5 rooms were uncompleted. The plaintiff added that they again built 4 rooms on defendant’s father’s land and also acquired one plot of land at Sefwi Aboduam. The plaintiff further said they cultivated 10 acres of cocoa farm on defendant’s land at Sefwi Aboduam, and cultivated 2 acres of cocoa farm on defendant’s land at Sefwi Apatamadi, and again cultivated a half acre cocoa farm on her land at Sefwi Asafo. The plaintiff continued that the elders including family members of both parties who sat on the matter and dissolved the marriage proposed after a lengthy deliberation that each party should take the property on his or her land, and according to the plaintiff, she and the defendant agreed to the proposed method of sharing of their properties they acquired jointly during the subsistence of their marriage. So the defendant got the 10 acre cocoa farm at Aboduam, the two acre farm at Apatamadi, the one plot of land at Aboduam, and the four rooms on defendant’s father’s land at Asafo. And she got the two rooms and five uncompleted rooms on her land at Asafo, 1 | P a g e and the half acre cocoa farm on her land at Asafo. The plaintiff further said she provided ntaasie of GH₵150.00 to seal the divorce and the terms of agreement as she asked for the dissolution of the marriage. However, the defendant had refused to vacate one of the two rooms they were living in before the marriage was dissolved which was part of her share of the properties they had shared. So the court should order for defendant’s ejectment from the house. Again, the plaintiff said she had 4 children with the defendant but the defendant did not cater properly for them so the court should order defendant to maintain the 4 children at GH₵1000.00 per week, and was therefore claiming as per her writ of summons. It is the case of the defendant that he married the plaintiff and had four children with her but the marriage was dissolved in August, 2022. The defendant said at the meeting to dissolve the marriage because it was the plaintiff who initiated it she was made to pay ntaasie. That at the meeting the plaintiff’s family members said he should vacate the house he had built with plaintiff and give the house to her but he refused and plaintiff took him to DOVVSU. However, the matter could not be resolved and plaintiff instituted this action against him. The defendant further said after their maternal marriage, his maternal grandmother, Afia Damtewaa @ Yaa Achaah, gave him land at Sefwi Aboduam and he cultivated a cocoa farm on the land. The defendant again said, his father built 2 rooms up to lintel level before he died and he (defendant) and his siblings contributed and completed the 2 rooms to accommodate those who attended the funeral. The defendant also said he purchased the plot of land on which the two rooms and five uncompleted rooms were situated from one man called D. S. and that concerning his four children with plaintiff, he had been taking care of them before the divorce and continued to cater for them after the divorce. So he was not liable to the plaintiff’s claim. On the fact before the court there is no dispute that the parties have a 10-acre cocoa farm at Aboduam and 2-acre cocoa farm at Apatamdi. It is also not in dispute that the parties have a half-acre cocoa farm at Asafo and a plot at Aboduam. There is no dispute that the parties have a house with two rooms and 5 uncompleted rooms at Asafo but there is a dispute over the four rooms on defendant’s father’s land at Asafo. The plaintiff however said the above mentioned properties had been shared between the parties by the elders and family members who met and dissolved the marriage. The defendant on his part denied that the properties had been shared or rather as he stated in his statement of defence paragraph 4 that they agreed to the possession of cocoa farm and others on each party’s land but he objected to the possession of paragraph 2(d) of the plaintiff’s statement of claim as the plaintiff’s share. Paragraph 2(d) of the statement of claim stated that “Two rooms at Asafo on plaintiff plot” should be given to plaintiff. So in effect the defendant agreed to the properties shared between 2 | P a g e them by the elders as stated by the plaintiff. But he objected to given the two rooms on plaintiff’s land to her. The defendant also said the rooms on his father’s land were two rooms which belonged to his father who built the two rooms to lintel level before he died, and that the 1 plot of land at Aboduam belongs to her mother. So to be fair to both parties the court will make determinations about the properties as to whether each property should be shared between the parties especially, as what took place during the dissolution was a negotiation for a settlement; therefore, if the defendant objected to the decision by the elders, it was within his right to do so because it was not binding as there was no evidence that the defendant paid any money to the elders before or after the settlement to signify that he had agreed to the decision. The ntaasie the plaintiff paid therefore could only be for the confirmation for the marriage dissolution. So the issues for determination are: 1. Whether or not both parties cultivated the 10-acre cocoa farm at Aboduam. 2. Whether or not the parties cultivated the 2-acre cocoa farm at Apatamadi. 3. Whether or not both parties acquired the 1 plot of land at Aboduam. 4. Whether or not both parties cultivated the half-acre cocoa farm at Sefwi Asafo. 5. Whether or not the land on which the 2 rooms and 5 uncompleted rooms are situated was acquired by the plaintiff or both parties. 6. Whether or not both parties built the 2 rooms and 5 uncompleted rooms at Sefwi Asafo. 7. Whether or not both parties built the 4 rooms on defendant fathers land. 8. Whether or not the defendant is legally liable to pay maintenance to plaintiff for the upkeep of the 4 children. 9. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to her claim ISSUE 1: Whether or not both parties cultivated the 10-acre cocoa farm at Aboduam. According to the plaintiff she and the defendant cultivated the 10 acre cocoa farm during the subsistence of their marriage. During the cross examination of the plaintiff the only question the defendant asked about the 10 acre cocoa farm was “I put it to you that the farm is not 10 acres” and the plaintiff replied “it is 10 acres and you told 3 | P a g e me that you engaged a certain man who measured the farm and it was 10 acre.” The defendant did not dispute that he and the plaintiff cultivated the 10-acre cocoa farm during the cross examination of the plaintiff. Vincent Afriyie (PW1) the assembly man of Sefwi Asafo, said he took part in the dissolution of the marriage between the parties. He also said when the plaintiff listed the properties theyacquired in the marriage including the 10-acre cocoa farm, the defendant said he did not cultivate the 10 acre cocoa farm with the plaintiff, but the plaintiff maintained and insisted that she cultivated it with the defendant. So they did not conclude as to whether both parties cultivated it, and therefore decided that each party should take the property on his or her land. According to the defendant when his maternal grandmother, Afia Damtewaa @ Yaa Ackaah, gave the land to him, he went with the plaintiff in the year 1999 and cultivated the land. But he felt sick in the year 2000 and went for treatment and returned in the year 2004 to continue the farm work, but this time he did not go with the plaintiff, so he did not cultivate the 10-acre cocoa farm with the plaintiff. The defendant however, did not tell the court that when he and plaintiff went on the land in 1999 they did not cultivate any cocoa on the land. The court therefore presumes that the parties went and started the cultivation of the cocoa farm at Aboduam in the year 1999 and the defendant went and continued it in the year 2004, whiles the parties were still a married couple. And that probably was the reason why the defendant did not dispute during the cross-examination of the plaintiff that they both cultivated the cocoa farm. On the evidence therefore I find that both parties cultivated the 10 acre cocoa farm. ISSUE 2: Whether or not the parties cultivated the 2-acre cocoa farm at Apatamadi. The plaintiff said she and the defendant cultivated a 2-acre cocoa farm at Apatamadi. The defendant did not dispute this evidence by the plaintiff during the cross examination of plaintiff. But he asked the following questions: Que: the land at Apatamadi is not 2 acres as you said? Ans: You told me the land would be up to 2 acres. Que: Do you know the land at Apatamadi? Ans: Yes I know there very well Que: Do you know the farm at Apatamadi? Ans: Yes I know it. It is clear to the court from the questions and answers above that the defendant did not deny or dispute or challenge the plaintiff’s evidence that she cultivated the 2-acre cocoa farm with him. 4 | P a g e Vincent Afriyie (PW1) said the plaintiff told them that she and the defendant had cultivated a cocoa farm at Apatamadi. During the cross examination of PW1, the defendant put it to him that the arrangement over the Apatamadi land was that the plaintiff said he (defendant) should prepare a document to cover the farm as his brother had a share in it, PW1, replied that, that was on a different occasion when they met with the parties to reconcile them, and the plaintiff said defendant had to prepare a document to cover the land at Apatamadi because she suspected that defendant wanted to cultivate the land for his siblings and defendant said his mother gave the land to him on abunu terms. From the cross examination between PW1 and defendant above, the defendant again did not dispute that the plaintiff cultivated the cocoa farm at Apatamadi with him. What came out from the above cross examination was that the Apatamadi land was a family land given to the defendant to cultivate on abunu terms. In the evidence-in-chief of the defendant he never mentioned the cocoa farm at Apatamadi at all. He only talked about the 10-acre cocoa farm at Aboduam. On the evidence therefore, I find that the parties cultivated the 2-acre cocoa farm at Apatamadi. ISSUE 3: Whether or not both parties acquired the 1 plot of land at Aboduam. The plaintiff said she and defendant acquired one plot of land at Aboduam but the land belonged to the defendant. The defendant had earlier stated in his statement of defence that the one plot at Aboduam was the property of his mother. So in effect his mother gifted the one plot to him. The plaintiff led no evidence to show whether they purchased the land from the defendant’s mother, or the mother gifted it to them. The court is therefore of the view that the plaintiff could not lead sufficient evidence to establish that she acquired the land with the defendant. Accordingly I find that the plaintiff did not acquire the one plot of land at Aboduam with the plaintiff. ISSUE 4: Whether or not both parties cultivated the half-acre cocoa farm at Sefwi Asafo. The plaintiff said in his evidence-in-chief that she and the defendant cultivated a half acre cocoa farm at Sefwi Asafo. Vincent Afriyie (PW1) added that the plaintiff said she and the defendant cultivated cocoa farm on her father’s land at Sefwi Asafo, when they went to dissolve the marriage between the parties. Even though the defendant did not say anything about the half acre cocoa farm but the admission by the plaintiff which was confirmed by PW1 meant that the defendant needed not to say anything 5 | P a g e about it unless of course he did not cultivate the half-acre cocoa farm with plaintiff and he wanted the court to know about it. Accordingly, I find that both parties cultivated the half acre cocoa farm at Sefwi Asafo. ISSUE 5: Whether or not the land on which the 2 rooms and 5 uncompleted rooms are situated was acquired by the plaintiff or both parties. The plaintiff in her statement of claim and evidence-in-chief said the land on which the 2 rooms and 5 uncompleted rooms were situated was her property. To a question by the defendant as to how she became the owner of the land, the plaintiff said her mother’s uncle Kwabena kwarteng @ D. S gifted the land to her. To another question that he acquired the land from P. K. K. Kwarteng, the plaintiff replied that it was not true. To a follow up question that he informed P. K. K. Kwarteng that he needed land and P. K. K Kwarteng instructed one Aduhene who demarcated the land to him, the plaintiff said it was not true but rather P. K. K kwarteng who was her grand uncle instructed his children J. J and Acheampong and Afua Mansah and they demarcated the land to her. PW1 confirmed that it was his father P. K. K Kwarteng who gave the land to the plaintiff and also gave land to other family members as the plaintiff was his father’s niece’s daughter. The defendant’s version was that his pastor advised him to purchase a plot of land and he informed his mother-in-law, Ama Owusuaa, about it. That later Ama Owusuaa informed D. S about the land he (defendant) wanted and D. S instructed his (defendant’s) brother-in-law, Adu Kofi to see the surveyor, Aduhene, to demarcate the land to him (defendant), and the land was demarcated to him. The defendant however failed to call Adu Kofi or Aduhene as a witness to confirm his assertion that they demarcated the land to him under instructions from P. K. K. Kwarteng @ D. S especially, when the plaintiff said in cross-examination of defendant that D. S was her grand uncle and he gifted the land to her. The defendant also failed to tell the court how much he paid for the land or whether D. S gave the land to her for free. Although the defendant called his brother, Francis Boateng (DW1) who said the defendant acquired a plot of land at Sefwi Asafo and asked him (DW1) to help clear the weeds on the plot and that the defendant told him it was D. S who granted the land to him but the land was demarcated by Adu Kofi and Aduhene, the court takes the evidence of DW1 with a pinch of salt as it was hearsay evidence. The court is of the view that if Ama Owusuaa who was the mother of the plaintiff had led defendant to acquire the land she would have informed the plaintiff about it. But it seems from the 6 | P a g e evidence before the court that the plaintiff did not know anything about the defendant acquiring the land. The court is therefore inclined to accept the version of the plaintiff as P. K. K Kwarteng @ D. S, was the plaintiff’s grand uncle, and a son of D. S, PW1, confirmed that his father gifted the land to the plaintiff. On the evidence therefore, I find that the land on which the two rooms and 5 uncompleted rooms are situated was acquired by the plaintiff. ISSUE 6: Whether or not both parties built the 2 rooms and 5 uncompleted rooms at Sefwi Asafo. According to the Plaintiff, she and the Defendant built the 2 rooms and 5 uncompleted rooms on her land. Pw1 also said the Plaintiff told them during the dissolution of the marriage that she and the Defendant had built 2 rooms and about 4 other rooms which were at lintel level on her land. To a question by the Defendant that he built the house with Plaintiff but why was it that during the dissolution of the marriage Pw1 and the other elders asked him to vacate the house, Pw1 replied that the Defendant claimed the 2 cocoa farms were on his land, and the Plaintiff also claimed one farm was in her land so they all agreed that each party should take the property on his or her land. And that the house were two. So they said the Defendant should take the one on his father’s land, and the Plaintiff should take the one on her land because if both of them lived in the same house it might bring problems. From the Plaintiff’s own admission that she built the 2 rooms and 5 uncompleted rooms with the Defendant, and the confirmation by Pw1 coupled with Defendant’s question in the cross-examination above and the response by Pw1, it is clear to the court that the Plaintiff and Defendant together built the 2rooms and the 5 uncompleted rooms. The court also presumes that the plaintiff’s land was part of her contribution to the acquisition of the house on the land as the evidence indicated that the defendant mostly financed the building of their house. I therefore find that both parties built the 2 rooms and the 5 uncompleted rooms at Sefwi Asafo. ISSUE 7: Whether or not both parties built 4 rooms at Sefwi Asafo on defendant’s father’s land. 7 | P a g e According to the Plaintiff she and the Defendant built 4 rooms on Defendant’s father’s land. That they built 4 rooms in addition to rooms in the house built by the Defendant’s father. When the Defendant put it to her that he had not put up 4 rooms in his father’s house, the Plaintiff replied that the defendant built the 4 rooms. She added that the defendant said after he had completed the rooms he was building in his father’s house he would then continue and complete their uncompleted rooms but he did not after he finished with the four rooms in his father’s house. Pw1 said the plaintiff told them that she and the defendant built the four rooms in defendant father’s house, but the defendant denied that he and the plaintiff built it. In his evidence-in-chief the defendant said the rooms was 2 rooms and not 4 rooms as the plaintiff told the court. He said his father built 2 rooms to lintel level but died before he could complete it so he and his siblings completed it to accommodate some of the people who attended his father’s funeral. Gabriel Boateng (DW2), another brother of the defendant, confirmed that his late father built 2 rooms but could not complete it. He said that his father initially built 5 rooms and gave a room to the defendant who stayed there with the plaintiff till they gave birth to their first child. That later his father put up 2 additional rooms to lintel level but died in the year 2010 before he could complete it. So during the funeral preparation the defendant who was their eldest sibling among 7 siblings organised them to complete the 2 rooms for some visitors to the funeral to get a place to sleep. When the plaintiff put it to DW2 that the room defendant built on his father’s compound were 4, DW2 replied that there were 4 uncompleted rooms on the compound and they, the siblings, completed 2 of the rooms for the funeral. But there was a dispute over the other 2 rooms and the matter was before the court. And that the 2 disputed rooms belonged to his sister, Gifty Boateng @ Panin, who went to Dubai and sent money to defendant to build it for her. The plaintiff put it to DW2 that the defendant used his money to build those disputed 2 rooms together with the other 2 rooms making 4 rooms but DW2 replied that it was not true as it was his sister, Panin, who sent money to defendant to build the 2 rooms for her. Then the plaintiff put it to DW2 again that it was after the death of his father that defendant built the 4 rooms because it was defendant who told her that he used his money to build the 4 rooms otherwise she would not have known it, DW2 replied that it was not true as his late father started to build the 2 rooms before he died, and his father did not collect money from defendant to do that. From the evidence above on this issue, it seems the plaintiff’s only source of information as to who built the 4 rooms was the defendant. Because she said if the defendant had not told her about who built the 4 rooms she would not have known it. So if the defendant did not tell her the truth about who actually built the 4 rooms 8 | P a g e she would not know. In fact PW1 said when the plaintiff raised the issue of the 4 rooms that it was defendant who built it on his father’s compound, the defendant denied that he built it. So if the plaintiff claimed that it was defendant who told her, the defendant had denied it. DW2 who the court thinks was a credible witness had also confirmed that it was defendant and his siblings, who completed the 2 rooms stated by their late father, and the other 2 rooms belonged to their sister Panin, who sent money to defendant to build it for her. So the court is more disposed to believe the defendant’s version which was corroborated. On the evidence therefore, I find that the 4 rooms on defendant’s father’s compound at Sefwi Asafo were not built by any of the parties. ISSUE 8: Whether or not the defendant is legally liable to pay maintenance to plaintiff for the upkeep of the 4 children. The plaintiff said she and defendant had 4 children, Richard Boateng, Daniel Appiah, Stephen Benie and Jesssica Sor who were 19, 16, 12 and 9 years old respectively, but the defendant had not been maintaining them adequately as he gave the children money as and when he liked. The defendant on his part said he had been taking adequate care of his four children 2 of which were staying with the plaintiff’s elder sister in Accra and he had been sending money to them through the plaintiff’s sister and that when their eldest child Richard Boateng wanted to continue his education he sent him GH₵2,000.00 through plaintiff’s sister. To a question by the defendant as to whether he did not take care of the children, the plaintiff replied that he took care of them but it was not adequate. To a follow up question as to how the plaintiff wanted him to take care of them since he had already been doing so, the plaintiff replied that the defendant did not give them pocket money, and did not buy them clothes, school bags and so on as she had been doing all this for the children. To another question that 2 of their children were already in Accra and every 2 or 3 months he sent them GH₵300, GH₵400 or GH₵500 for their upkeep, the plaintiff replied that she did not know that defendant had been sending their 2 children money. To yet to another question as to who enrolled their second child, Daniel, in Sefwi Wiawso secondary Technical, the plaintiff replied that both of them did it. To another question that when their first child, Richard Boateng, was going to school, the GH₵2,000.00 sent to him, he the defendant also contributed to it, the plaintiff replied that the defendant contributed GH₵500 and she added GH₵1,500.00 and sent it to Richard through her sister. To an additional question that he had been giving their last child, Jessica, pocket money of GH₵15 per day for school, the plaintiff admitted it but added that she had been adding to defendant’s GH₵15.00 with GH₵20.00 per day 9 | P a g e and also gave food to Jessica in the evening after school. And that she enrolled Jessica in school and had been taking care of her other school expenses. During the cross- examination of the defendant in a response to a question as to how much he had been paying for their monthly up keep of their children, defendant said he sent them GH₵300.00 per month or per 3 months to their 2 children in Accra. From the evidence-in-chief of the parties and the cross examination pertaining to the maintenance of the children, the court is of the considered view that both parties had been taking care of their 4 children, but the defendant’s contribution was not adequate especially considering the unfavourable economic situation the country is going through resulting in high cost of living. Section 6 of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560) “under parental duty and responsibility” states at 1(b) that “no parent shall deprive a child his welfare whether the parent of the child continue to live together or not” section 6 (2) further states that “every child has the right to life, dignity, respect leisure, liberty, health, education and shelter from his parents.” Section 6(3)(b) further states that “every parent has right and responsibilities whether imposed by law or otherwise towards his child which includes the duty to provide good guidance, care, assistance and maintenance for the child and assurance of the child’s survival and development.” Then section 47 (1) of the said Act 560 under “Duty to maintain a child” states that “A parent or any other person who is legally liable to maintain a child or contribute towards the maintenance of the child is under duty to supply the necessaries of health, life, education and reasonable shelter for the child”. So from the Sections 5 and 6 of Act 560 parent have the duty to cater adequately for their children. But section 1 of Act 560 defines a child as a person below 18 years of age. Which means that if the child is 18 years or more the parent is not legally liable to maintain him or her. It does not means the parent is not liable as customarily the parent could be liable. But at 18 years and above the parent cannot be brought to court for not taking adequate care or for refusing to take care of his children for an order to compel the parent to do so. Therefore section 53 (1) of Act 560 (1) states that a maintenance order shall expire when the child attains the age of 18 years or dies before that age. However, section 54(1) of Act 560(1) states that “the maintenance maybe continued after the child has attained 18 years if the child is engage in a course of continuing education or training after that age”. In this case of the eldest of the parties is over 18 years old but the other 3 children are below 18 years of age. But since the eldest child, Richard Boateng, is continuing his education as the evidence indicated, he qualifies to be catered for by his parents. But 10 | P a g e the evidence showed that the defendant had not been catering adequately for his 4 children with plaintiff. Accordingly on the evidence, I find that the defendant is legally liable to pay maintenance for the up keeping of the 4 children. ISSUE 9: Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to her claim The plaintiff instituted this action for a declaration of title to a two room house at Sefwi Asafo, recovery of possession of the said 2-room house, ejection of the defendant from the house and an order for maintenance of their 4 children. However, the basis upon which the plaintiff was claiming the 2 room house was vehemently disputed by the defendant on the ground that both of them built the 2 room house and five uncompleted rooms, so the property could not be given to plaintiff. According to PW1 when they met to dissolve the marriage between the parties the defendant insisted that he did not cultivate the 2 cocoa farms on the family land with the plaintiff, and since the plaintiff also had 1 cocoa farm on her land the elders said then each should take the farms on their land. And that the defendant should take the 4 rooms the plaintiff claimed she built with the defendant on his father’s land and the plaintiff should also take the 2 rooms and the 5 uncompleted rooms on her land. But according to PW1, the defendant denied that he and the plaintiff built 4 rooms on his father land. PW1 also said, the plaintiff admitted that she and the defendant built the two rooms and the 5 uncompleted rooms. So in the view of the court there was no reasonable basis for the panel members to decide that each party should take the properties on his or her land, when the 4 rooms on the defendant’s fathers land were not built by the defendant as the evidence before the court showed. Since the defendant disputed the decision of the panel members and did not pay any money to them but the plaintiff was the only person who paid the money, the court presumed that, the money the plaintiff paid as ntaasie was in respect of the dissolution of the marriage between the parties and not the sharing of the properties. So the decision for each to take the property on his or her land was not binding on the parties. The court therefore made the determination based on the evidence before it. As order 15 rule 1 of the District Court Rules, 2009(C. I. 59) states, “A plaintiff may obtain any equitable relief which the fact stated and proved in the suit entitles that plaintiff even if that relief has been not been specifically asked for.” 11 | P a g e The court has found based on the evidence that both parties cultivated the 10-acre cocoa farm at Aboduam, the 2-acre cocoa farm at Apatamadi and the half acre cocoa farm at Asafo. The court has also found that the one plot of land at Aboduam belonged to the defendant, the land on which the 2 rooms and 5 uncompleted rooms are situated belonged to the plaintiff and that the 4 rooms on the defendant’s father’s compound did not belong to either the plaintiff or the defendant. The court has further found that both parties built the two-room house and 5 uncompleted rooms on plaintiff’s land, and that the defendant is legally liable to pay maintenance for the up keeping of the parties’ 4 children. On the whole of the evidence before the court therefore and on the preponderance of probabilities, I find that the plaintiff is entitles to her claiming in part. Accordingly, judgement is hereby entered for the plaintiff on her claim against the defendant in part. Consequently since both parties built the 2 rooms and the 5 uncompleted rooms on plaintiff’s land, it is the view of the court that it will be fair and just to give a greater share to the plaintiff. Accordingly it hereby ordered that 1 room should go to each party, in addition the plaintiff should take 3 uncompleted rooms. The remaining 2 uncompleted rooms should go to the defendant. It is hereby further ordered that the defendant should pay GH₵1000.00 monthly to the plaintiff as maintenance for the up- keeping of the 4 children of the parties with effect from June 2023. The defendant is further ordered to pay the school fees of the 4 children, pay for their medical expenses, and provide them with clothes, foot wears and other necessaries of life. Since the parties cultivated the 2-acre Apatamadi land with cocoa on abunu terms although it was defendant’s family land, it is hereby ordered that the plaintiff is entitled to a half portion of the 1 acre cocoa farm at Apatamadi which would be the share of the parties, Again, since the parties cultivated the 10-acre cocoa farm at Aboduam on the defendant’s family land, the court the presumes that as the Apatamadi cocoa farm was done on abunu terms the 10-acre cocoa farm was also cultivated on abunu terms with the defendant’s family. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the plaintiff is entitled to 2-acre of the 5-acre cocoa farm at Aboduam which would be the share of parties. In addition, it is hereby ordered that the one plot of land at Aboduam should go to the defendant. It is hereby further ordered that the half-acre cocoa farm on plaintiff’s land at Asafo should go to the plaintiff. Since the 4 rooms on the defendant’s father’s land was not built by the parties the court will not make any order in respect of those 4 rooms. Cost of GH₵2,000 is hereby awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the Defendant. 12 | P a g e SGD ::: SAMUEL ENTEE JNR. ESQ. THE MAGISTRATE 13 | P a g e