OGBUCHI VRS AKUBULGO (UE/NA/DC/A2/4/2023.) [2023] GHADC 1270 (31 August 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT NAVRONGO IN THE UPPER EAST REGION ON THURSDAY THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023, BEFORE HIS WORSHIP FAMOUS YAO AMANYO (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) COURT SUIT NO UE/NA/DC/A2/4/2023. OGBUCHI JOHN CHIKA …………………PLAINTIFF AKUBULGO ZOTIPELIBA AYEO …………………DEFENDANT v JUDGMENT [1] The Plaintiff issued writ of summons against the Defendant on the 19th December, 2022 for the following reliefs: 1. Refund of cash sum of GH¢2,400.00 being money paid to Defendant for a piece of land since June, 2022 which Defendant has refused to pay despite several repeated demands. 2. Expenses of GH¢1,365.00 being cost of labour and transportation of materials from the old site to the new site. 3. Interest on reliefs 1 and 2 from June, 2022 until the final determination of the case. 4. Inconvenient cost. 5. Cost. [2] The fact of this case are that Plaintiff and Defendant are trader and farmer respectively. They were friends. In June, 2022, the plaintiff acquired three single room portions of land from Defendant. The mode of acquisition was not clear but the plaintiff paid GH¢2,400.00 to Defendant. The plaintiff could not use the land because there are encumbrances identified after its acquisition. [3] At the trial, the following issues were noted: a. whether or not the lands sold to plaintiff are free from encumbrances, b. whether or not the contract between plaintiff and defendant is a lease or outright purchase, c. whether or not defendant prevents plaintiff from developing the land, d. whether or not plaintiff is entitled to the expenses of GH¢1,365.00, and e. whether or not plaintiff is entitled to interest on claims 1 and 2. [4] It is pertinent to note that in the course of proceedings the Defendant’s plea was taken for the second time upon his request and he pleaded liable to relief I and not liable to the rest of the reliefs. Judgment was accordingly entered for recovery of relief 1. So relief 1 was not contested. [5] The case of the Plaintiff was that the Defendant sold three single room portions of land to him at the cost of GH¢2,400.00 in June, 2022. After the purchase, the Defendant informed him that the land belongs to his family. When he went onto the land to develop it, members of Defendant’s family protested and prevented him from doing so and even advised him go to Defendant for a refund of the purchase price he paid to Defendant. The Plaintiff informed the Defendant about encumbrance he encountered and demanded for a refund. The Defendant then demarcated another land for Plaintiff at Yua. The Plaintiff moved the cement blocks he had laid on the first land to Yua. He contracted the Youth of Yua and they dug foundation of the building for him. According to Plaintiff, after the foundation had been dug, the Defendant told him to stop the building project because the Youth of Yua protested to the chief concerning plaintiff’s previous conduct. And that the chief called for a meeting and also put the project on hold. The plaintiff requested for a refund on this second occasion but Defendant failed to return the purchase price paid to him. [6] PW1, Ogbuchi Regina Ifeoma is the wife of accused. According to her she knew the Defendant. Somewhere in June, 2022 the Defendant sold a piece of land measuring three (3) rooms to Plaintiff at the cost of GH¢2,400.00. Plaintiff made the payment. On several occasions, the Plaintiff told Defendant to measure the land for him but Defendant always gave excuses. The Defendant later urged the Plaintiff to start moulding blocks and when he is ready, he would measure the land for plaintiff. The Plaintiff provided some items demanded by Defendant in addition to the purchase price. Plaintiff dug the foundation but was stopped by Defendant’s family members from putting up the building. Plaintiff requested for a change of land and Defendant gave him another land at Yua. The plaintiff dug foundation and sent materials to start building but the Defendant prevented the plaintiff from doing so with allegation that the Youth of Yua told the chief that they will not allow Plaintiff to build. [7] PW1 states further that the Plaintiff incurred additional cost of GH¢1,365.00 on labour and transportation of building materials to the site at Yua. According to her after realizing the Defendant was not truthful with Plaintiff, Plaintiff demanded for a refund but the Defendant refused to return the GH¢2,400.00 since June, 2022. [8] It is the case of the Defendant that he knew Plaintiff since 2021. Plaintiff’s interest was to get a piece of land to live on with his family. In 2022, he leased a piece of land at the cost of GH¢ 4,500.00 to Plaintiff at Yua. Plaintiff paid 2,400.00 to him on 20th July, 2022. Plaintiff owes him a balance of GH¢2,100.00. He is the owner of the land at Yua which land is under the custodian, Naba Issaka Awudu, (Chief of Yua). According to defendant, he supported the Plaintiff to start the building project but the youth of Yua alleged that plaintiff was a known criminal and because of this he was not stable as he lived in Bolgatanga and Sandema before he came and settled at Sirigu. The youth told the chief that they will not allow Plaintiff to stay on the land. The Defendant persuaded and assured the youth that plaintiff will change under his roof. According to defendant, the plaintiff had all the liberty to stay on the land. He never prevented plaintiff from carrying out his building project on the land at Yua. The project only came to a halt when he delivered a message from the chief to plaintiff. [9] The Defendant filed witness statement of two witnesses, Zumah Baba Yaro and Peter Akansise but only Zumah baba Yaro appeared and testified in court. According to DW1, in 2010, he was interested in four plots of land owned by Defendant. The land is situated at Yua. He knew the Defendant as a businessman who does not cheat. The Defendant told him that the land at Yua had been given to a Nigerian. He was at a meeting of Defendant and chief of Yua on 10th December, 2022 where the chief stated that plaintiff should not put up the building because the land was already acquired by someone. The person made part payment. Later, Defendant came with the person to pay the balance. The defendant collected the balance from the person and indicated that he would like his senior brother to come and pay it because the part payment was made through his senior brother. Defendant cannot sell the land because it is not for him. [10] The Defendant requested for the calling of the sub chief of Yua as the court’s witness which was granted. The sub chief, Issaka Awudu Agandaa appeared and testified on oath that he knew the parties. According to him the land at Yua in his belief is not owned by Defendant. The Defendant came with somebody and it was that person who bought the land. In 2022, the Defendant came to the land owners and informed them, he wanted to sell part of the land at Yua to someone. He brought the Plaintiff and sold three room portions to him. His attention was drawn to the fact that Plaintiff was coming to put up building on the land. He told Defendant to stop Plaintiff from building because there are issues to iron out before the project goes on. Plaintiff and his wife came to his house but he asked them to come later. He went and reported the case between parties to the chief of Yua. The chief of Yua directed that the youth petitioned him about Plaintiff’s lifestyle and that he wanted to do proper background checks on the Plaintiff before he would allow Plaintiff to build on the land. Defendant did not object to the chief’s request. Defendant suggested to the chief to hurriedly investigate the matter and get Plaintiff to continue with his building project on the land. [11] Before I consider the issues, I wish to emphasize the evidential burden on each party in this case. The principle is that a party who makes positive assertion capable of proof has the burden of persuasion and burden of producing evidence on that issue or assertion. The burden of persuasion and of producing evidence in civil cases is provided for under section 10 to 17 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) but for purposes of this case I will rely on sections 11, 12, 14 and 17 of NRCD 323. [12] It is provided in these sections as follows: “11(1) For the purpose 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.” “14 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. [13] “17 Except as otherwise provided by law (a) The burden of producing evidence of a particular fact is on the party against whom a finding on that fact would be required in the absence of further proof. (b) The burden of producing evidence of a particular fact is initially on the party with the burden of persuasion as to that fact.” [14] These provisions point to the fact that at one point or another, there is evidential burden on each party in this case depending on the requirement under the issues before the court and a party who fails in that regard is likely to have the court ruled against him. [15] The standard required of a party who sues and the one who makes positive assertion in a civil case is the same and that standard of proof is by preponderance of probabilities. [16] This standard is as provided for under section 11(4) and 12(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) as follows: “11 (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. [17] “12(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by preponderance of the probabilities.” [18] In this case even though the Defendant did not counterclaim, it is observed that he has burden of proof on some of the issues. However, the Plaintiff assumes the burden of proving his case. [19] On the issue as to whether or not lands sold to Plaintiff are free from all encumbrances. It is provided in section 50 (1) of the Lands Act, 2020 (Act 1036) as follows: “50(1) In a conveyance for valuable consideration there are implied the covenants of right to convey, quiet enjoyment, freedom from encumbrances and further assurance, in the terms set out in part I of the Second Schedule.” [20] This provision of the Lands Act was explained by Sir Dennis Dominic Adjei JA in his book Land Law, Practice and Conveyancing in Ghana 3rd edition at pages 479 to 480, where he laid emphasis on the vendor having consent of persons who matter, power to covey, assurance, quiet enjoyment and freedom from encumbrances among others. [21] In this case the Defendant sold the land to plaintiff and after he paid the purchase price, defendant indicated to him that the land belongs to his family. This revelation came to light when plaintiff is under cross examination as follows:- Q. What did I do to you to bring me before this Honourable Court? A. I paid for land but you did not want to give it to me. Q. If I did not give you the plot, where did you get the land on which you are digging your foundation? A. You gave me a place which you claimed to be yours but your family stopped me from working and advised that I should go to you for a refund. You later showed me another land at Yua but again you stopped me from working on it. Q. Do you remember you came to our house with cola to greet my elder brother? A. I remember (yes). Q. If I did not inform you that the land is a family land why would I call you before my brother? A. You informed me after I have paid, that the land is a family land. [22] This piece of evidence clearly shows that the land sold to Plaintiff is a family land. Since it is family land it was required of Defendant to inform the Plaintiff early so that he could form his best decision as to whether to pay or not. It is obvious that Defendant informed Plaintiff only after Plaintiff had paid the purchase price. [23] It was observed that the Defendant, realizing he could not secure the family land for Plaintiff took plaintiff and demarcated a land at Yua for him which land he claims to have owned. At Yua, and after the Plaintiff dug foundation trenches for his building project, the defendant informed plaintiff to stop the project because the sub chief of Yua directed so. The Defendant requested from Plaintiff to see the chief together but Plaintiff went to the chief alone. The Plaintiff could not resolve the matter with the chief as efforts to meet each other failed. The fact that there are problems with the land at Yua was revealed when the court’s witness testified and was cross examined by Defendant as follows: Q. When you called me did you tell me that the youth petitioned that the Plaintiff should not build on the land or you said because somebody had already bought the land that was why you are stopping the Plaintiff from building on the land? A. I told you the youth of Yua protested that the Plaintiff should not build on the land. Q. Do you remember when I wrote my witness statement I gave you copy? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember you said you were the one who stopped the plaintiff from building? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember I came to you in the company of Adeti’ a Journalist and Yaro Zumah? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember Mr. Yaro Zumah told you he is a friend to Plaintiff and that he heard of the case and he wanted to help settle the matter out of court? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember you told Mr. Zumah that the youth petitioned the chief but the land belongs to me? A. I told Mr. Zumah that the youth petitioned but I did not say that the land belongs to Defendant. If I said anything like that then it was a mistake. Q. Are you aware that the money I gave my brother to pay, he paid but left GH₵500.00 unpaid? A. Yes. The person who bought the land paid through you in full but you decided to pay bit by bit. Q. Do you know who bought the land? A. No. Q. Do you know the purpose for which I and my friend bought the land? A. Yes. Q. Do you know that because of the remaining GH¢500.00 the land owners went and borrowed money and asked me to pay the person because my brother is no more. And I am yet to pay. A. Yes. Q. I put it to you that we bought the land to put up fuel station. And because of June 3rd disaster the authorities rejected the place. And my friend got married to a white lady and the wife asked him to sell all properties. So he sold all the fuel stations and asked me to take the land and do whatever I wanted with it because he will not come back here unless his dead body. A. You told me part of it but not all. [24] At this point it became obvious that the remaining purchase price of Yua land owed by Defendant and his friend to the land owners is still outstanding. The Defendant’s assertion that his friend permitted him to take the Yua land remains unsubstantiated, the chief of Yua and the youth are not comfortable with either the presence of plaintiff on the land or the sale of the land by Defendant because in their belief the Defendant is not the owner of the land at Yua. These show that the land at Yua is also encumbered. [25] The Defendant as a vendor of Plantiff in the land transaction has implied covenant to disclose all encumbrances concerning the land he intends to convey to plaintiff. The Defendant in this case knew of the encumbrances pertaining to the lands he sold to Plaintiff but failed to inform him. [26] The Defendant purports to fulfil requirement of the implied covenant but harm was already done to Plaintiff as he had already paid for the price of the land. There was no opportunity for Plaintiff to decide to purchase or withdraw from doing so. The Defendant held onto the purchase price and took Plaintiff without informing him that the land at Yua was in fact owned by his friend and that there is a balance of GH¢500.00 to pay. The GH¢500.00 outstanding is an encumbrance which needs to be disclosed. [27] Although the Defendant did not file counterclaim against the Plaintiff, he made positive assertion that his friend instructed him to assume ownership of the land at Yua. This averment places evidential burden on the Defendant to produce evidence to show that indeed his friend handed ever ownership of the land to him. Defendant failed to do so. I therefore hold that both lands at Sirigu and Yua are not free from encumbrances for purposes of alienation. [28] The second issue is whether not the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant is a lease or outright purchase. Justice Dennis Dominic Adjei’s book Land Law, Practice and Conveyancing in Ghana at page 277 adopted four elements of a lease from A. J. Oakley in Megarry’s Manual of the Law of Property. These elements are: “ a. the land must be well defined to make its identity certain; b. the lessee must have right to exclusive possession of the demised property during the subsistence of the lease; c. fulfilment of requirements of valid lease including reducing it into writing and being signed by the parties or their agents; and d. certainty of duration of the leasehold. The four essentials of a lease are important and each of them needs to be well explained to ensure that any lease that possesses the above essentials would not be rendered void.” [29] In Harvey V Pratt [1965] 2 ALL ER page 786 – 788 at 786 Lord Denning MR states that “in order that an agreement of a lease shall be valid there must be among other essentials agreement on the date of commencement of the term and in the absence of this date validity will not be given to the agreement either by implication that the term shall begin within a reasonable time or by taking the date of the agreement as the date of commencement.” [30]In Kofi Sarpong Kodua v Franklin Aduboi Jantuah[2016]DLSC 2877 the SC per Benin JSC held “…Thus the law as stated in sections 1,2 and 3(1) (f) of the Conveyancing Decree, 1975 NRCD 175 required any such lease to be evidenced in writing else it is ineffective to convey any title. Therefore the Plaintiff who has such agreement…could not claim to be the owner in possession…The plaintiff could not act in violation of the law and ask a court of equity to come to his aid.” [31] The Plaintiff stated in paragraph 4 of his statement of claim and paragraph 4 of his evidence in chief that in June, 2022 the Defendant sold piece of land measuring three rooms to Plaintiff at the cost of GH¢2,400.00. This claim of Plaintiff was repeated by PW1 in paragraph 4 of her witness statement. It is interesting to note that the Defendant admitted the said statement in paragraph 2 of his statement of defence as follow: “2 Defendant admits paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 of Plaintiff’s statement of claim.” [32] However, in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the statement of defence the defendant departed from the above fact by stating as follows:- “ 5 Defendant’s response to paragraph 3 of the Plaintiff’s statement of claim denies selling a parcel of land to Plaintiff. Defendant says he leased unnumbered plots to Plaintiff at a cost of GH¢4, 500.00.” “6. Defendant says Plaintiff made part payment of GH¢2,400.00 for the unnumbered plots leased to him with a balance of GH¢2,100.00 left to be paid.” The Defendant stood by his assertion that he leased the land to plaintiff at the cost of GH¢4,500.00 and that Plaintiff made part payment of GH¢2,400.00 in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his evidence in chief. [33] It was noticed that DW1 did not witness the transaction between Plaintiff and Defendant and therefore could not say whether there was outright purchase or lease. The sub chief told the court that in 2022 Defendant came to the land owners and told them that he wanted to sell part of that land to someone. He brought the Plaintiff and sold three (3) room portions to him. Even though Defendant made this wild assertion that he leased the land to plaintiff he neglected to cross examine Plaintiff on it. In the course of cross examination of Defendant by Plaintiff, it came out that the Defendant sold the land to Plaintiff as follows: Q. Do you remember that you asked me to buy tobacco, cola nut and a bottle of hot drink to come and ask your brother to add some land to the one I paid for? A. Yes. That shows that I am not dodging to sell the land to you. [34] However the Plaintiff did not also delve into the nitty gritty of the allegation. So virtually, the parties did not see the need to question which type of contract they were in. For a lease to be created the elements shown above ought to be present in the transaction. [35] In my opinion there is nothing showing on record that a lease has been created between Plaintiff and Defendant. There is no commencement date, no indication of when it would end, no duration, etc. In the absence of the elements above the agreement between plaintiff and Defendant can best be described as outright sale and will be treated as such. [36] However, Plaintiff is a foreigner but the agreement between him and Defendant is an outright sale and therefore purports to confer free hold interest on Plaintiff. It is as if no agreement existed. Article 266 (1)and (2) of the 1992 constitution prohibits such transactions. It provides “ 266 (1) No interest in or right over any land in Ghana shall be created which vests in a person who is not a citizen of Ghana a free hold interest in land in Ghana.” [37] “266 (2) An agreement, deed or conveyance of whatever nature, which seeks, contrary to clause (1) of this article, to confer on a person who is not a citizen of Ghana any freehold interest in or, right over, any land is void.” [38] On the third issue whether or not plaintiff prevents defendant from entering the land, it is on record that Defendant made efforts by introducing Plaintiff to Defendant’s brother. Defendant again took Plaintiff to the land owners at Yua and indicated to them that he was selling the land at Yua to Plaintiff. The Defendant alleged to have taken part in the digging of foundation for Plaintiff at Yua. [39] It was rather found out that it was the family members of Defendant who prevented Plaintiff from putting up his building at Sirigu. The building project of Plaintiff was again stalled by the chief of Yua who says that the land is not for Defendant. It is therefore my opinion that the Defendant did not prevent Plaintiff from putting up his building on both lands. However, Defendant failed to put Plaintiff into possession of the land he sold to him. [40] In Unilever Ghana Ltd v Kama Health Services [2013-2014]2 SCGLR 861 at 880-881 Benin JSC speaking for the court stated “it is an incidence of every sale of land for valuable consideration that the purchaser be granted quiet enjoyment. Thus possession that is challenged to the extent that the tenants even refused to pay rent to the purchaser on account of challenges to his title, would not be considered possession in the eyes of the law; it is anything but quiet enjoyment. The position then is that the defendant appellant having failed to give legal title to the plaintiff respondent, could not claim to have given them possession.” [41] The fourth issue is whether or not plaintiff is entitled to expenses of GH¢1,365.00. The plaintiff asserted that the Defendant gave him the go ahead to mould cement blocks for his building project to begin. According to plaintiff when the project stalled at Sirigu, he conveyed the blocks to Yua and contracted people who dug foundation holes of the building for him. Plaintiff stated that he used eleven bags of cement in moulding the blocks. Plaintiff’s wife repeated the claim of plaintiff on oath. Under cross examination she stated that she and plaintiff carried cement and blocks to the land. [42] The fact that the plaintiff conveyed cement blocks to the land is not in doubt because even the sub chief of Yua indicated under cross examination by court that he was aware of materials plaintiff brought to the land and that the things were blocks. What was not clear was the fact that plaintiff failed to prove the quantity of blocks conveyed and how much cost he incurred in doing so. Plaintiff again failed to prove how much he expended on labour in digging the foundation. [43] In response to plaintiff’s claim that he spent GH¢1,365.00 the Defendant stated in paragraph 11 of the statement of Defence as follows: “11 Defendant is not in position to deny or admit paragraph 12 and 13 of plaintiff’s statement of claim and says that he supported plaintiff with free labour in demarcating and digging of the unnumbered plots.” This position of Defendant was not challenged by plaintiff. To my mind prove of the expenditure of GH¢1,365.00 is necessary because the Defendant claims to have supported plaintiff with free labour. Plaintiff was not able to prove how he arrived at the GH¢1,365.00. So it is difficult for the court to conclude that plaintiff is entitled to the alleged expenses of GH¢1,365.00. [44] The fifth issue is whether or not plaintiff is entitled to interest on claims 1 and 2. In the course of proceedings the Defendant admits claim 1 being refund of GH¢2,400.00 paid to Defendant. The issue of interest on claims of money has been a hurdle from case to case and this case is no exception. This hurdle was finally surmounted under our C. I. 59 and C. I. 52. [45] Order 28 rule 7 (1) of the District Court Rules, 2009 C. I. 59 provides as follows:- “1. The court, at the time of giving judgment or making an order or at any time afterwards, may… (b)order the payment of interest at the same rate as High Court may order in the circumstances.” [46] Rule 1 of the Courts (Award of Interest and Post Judgment Interest) Rules, 2005 C. I. 52 also provides “1. if the court in a civil cause or matter decides to make an order for the payment of interest on a sum of money due to a party in an action, that interest shall be calculated (a) at the bank rate prevailing at the time the order is made and (b) at simple interest…” [47] The Plaintiff in this case claims for interests which claim, defendant denied. In the course of proceedings Plaintiff exhibited frustrations he went through to secure the place from the Defendant to dwell on but to not avail. The Defendant alluded to the fact that Plaintiff made some requests for refund of his money when he cross examined PW1 as follows:- Q. If the Plaintiff said, ‘if you would not get the place for me then give me my money’ is this statement the same as if the plaintiff said ‘give me my money’. A. Is the same. [48] It is clear that the plaintiff made demands for his money either with or without condition. Finally, defendant was unable to settle the plaintiff on the land since June, 2022. It is defendant’s duty to refund plaintiff’s money to him since plaintiff requested for it due to Defendant’s failure to secure better land for plaintiff. Now, the defendant is still keeping the purchase price paid to him for a piece of land he is unable to give to plaintiff. [49] In my opinion since Defendant is unable to provide a land free from encumbrances to Plaintiff, the only appropriate thing he should have done was to return the purchase price paid to him to the Plaintiff. This is what he failed or neglected to do. So his assertion that Plaintiff’s reliefs cannot be sustained in law cannot avail him. He is to assume risk of keeping the purchase price up to this time. [50] In Delle and Delle Vs Owusu Afriyie [2005-2006] SCGLR 6 it was held in holding 4 as follows:- “whilst it is true that at common law interest was not payable on a debt or loan in the absence of express agreement or a course of dealing or custom to that effect, under the existing statutory regime in Ghana, the courts have power to award interest on sums claimed and found to be due. Such interest is payable from the date on which the claim arose.” [51] Based on all this, plaintiff is entitled to interest on claim 1. Since plaintiff is not able to prove claim 2 as to how he arrived at the GH¢1,365.00, there is no need to allow interest on it. [52] On the totality of evidence on record, I found as a fact that: (a) The lands were sold to plaintiff. (b) The lands were encumbered. (c) Defendant did not prevent plaintiff from building on the land. He rather failed to put plaintiff into possession of the land. (d) Plaintiff made demands for a refund of the purchase price paid to Defendant, but Defendant hold onto the money hoping that he will secure the land for plaintiff. (e) Plaintiff did not prove relief 2 regarding the quantity of blocks and cement he sent to the land at Yua and expenses incurred in doing so. Plaintiff again failed to prove the cost of labour in digging the foundation. [53] In the result, I enter judgment for plaintiff against the defendant as follows: 1. Interest on claim 1 to be assessed from June, 2022 to 31st August, 2023 at the prevailing bank lending rate. 2. Relief 2 regarding expenses of GH¢1,365.00 is refused. 3. In awarding cost, I have taken into consideration the fact that Defendant caused plaintiff to mould cement blocks which he later conveyed to the land at Yua. Even though Plaintiff could not prove how much he expended in conveying the brocks and cement to the land at Yua, he was able to demonstrate that he actually did the conveyance and caused foundation to be dug on the land at Sirigu and land at Yua. All these were done in vain. These had occasioned inconveniences to the Plaintiff. [54] Plaintiff demanded for his money but Defendant refused to refund hoping that he will secure land for plaintiff. As a result plaintiff sued and incurred cost in filing the case and travelling from Sirigu to Navrongo for almost seventeen (17) times since December, 2022 to date. It is trite that cost is at the discretion of the court but such discretion is always exercised in accordance with law. See article 296 of the 1992 constitution. [55] Again order 7 rule 1(1) of the District Court Rules, 2009 C. I. 59 provides: “ (1) The costs in a suit or matter, and of each particular proceeding in the suit or matter is at the discretion of the court and the court may after hearing the parties, award costs it considers just. (2)In the absence of any express direction by the court, costs should be awarded at the end of the suit or proceeding”. [56] In Ritter v Godfrey [1920] 2 KB 42 at 52-53, CA Lord Sterndale MR noted as follows:- “ …there is such a settled practice of the courts that in the absence of special circumstances a successful litigant should receive his cost, that it is necessary to show some ground for exercising a discretion by refusing an order which would give them to him”. [57] Again in Guardian Assurance Co Ltd v Agbematu [1972] 2 GLR, CA the Court held that the discretion of the court should always be exercised judicially, ie according to reason and justice and not according to sentiment or sensibility. [58] I therefore award cost of GH¢1,000.00 for the inconveniences and GH¢2,000.00 for the expenses incurred in litigating the matter before this court. ( SGD.) H/W FAMOUS YAO AMANYO (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) REPRESENTATION No legal representation for parties. 19