ABISAH VRS BEDIAKO (BR/DR/DC/A11/14/2021) [2023] GHADC 1183 (27 November 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, DROBO BONO REGION SUIT NO. BR/DR/DC/A11/14/2021 ABISAH FAUSTINA PLAINTIFF OF H/NO. G2, DROBO VRS BEDIAKO COSMOS DEFENDANT OF KOFIKO NKWANTA JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY H/W LINDA E. NYAHE ESQ. (MAGISTRATE) DATED: 27/11/2023 Page 0 of 18 IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT DROBO ON THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023. BEFORE HER WORSHIP LINDA E. NYAHE (ESQ) (MAGISTRATE) SUIT NO. BR/DR/DC/A11/14/2021 ABISAH FAUSTINA PLAINTIFF OF H/NO. G2, DROBO VRS BEDIAKO COSMOS DEFENDANT OF KOFIKO NKWANTA ======================================================== PARTIES - PRESENT (BY THEMSELVES) JUDGMENT BACKGROUND Love stories they say come in different colours and shapes and each with its own twist and turns. The parties one is no exception. This case is about two former lovers who once shared their lives together until their love story took an unexpected path which has brought them presently before the law Court. Plaintiff is a trader who resides in Drobo. The Defendant is also a trader and resides at Kofiko Nkwanta all in the Jaman South Municipality. On 22nd February 2021, Plaintiff instituted this case against the Defendant and claimed as follows; Page 1 of 18 a. A fair share of five (5) bedrooms and hall self-contained house and a three (3) bedrooms Boys Quarters house, both with kitchen, toilet and bath facilities respectively situated on the same plot at Kofiko Nkwanta, which houses the Defendant (sic) herein supervised its construction from beginning to finishing. b. An order of the Honourable (sic) compelling the Defendant to compensate the Plaintiff with the sum of GH₵20,000(being push-off) for 22 years that the Defendant had wasted Plaintiff’s time and finally abandoning her for another woman. CASE/EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF It is Plaintiff’s case both in her statement of claim and evidence that in or around the year 1999, she entered into an amorous relationship with the Defendant herein and cohabited together at Kokosua in the Jaman North Municipality near Sampa. The Defendant then promised to marry her. That her (Plaintiff) father as well as Defendant’s father and other members of their family were aware of their relationship. About a year later, she got pregnant and delivered. After delivery, they relocated from Kokosua to live at Drobo that is in the year 2000 and lived together in a rented accommodation for six (6) years. Their first son and only child by name Nketiah Godfred is now 22 years old. In the year 2006, the Defendant travelled to Trinidad and Tobago leaving Plaintiff and son behind. That two years later, Defendant sent her money to buy a plot of land for the purpose of building a house on same. The said plot, subject matter in contention is situated at Kofiko Nkwanta. Plaintiff told the Court she bought the plot for an amount of GH₵250.00 from one Brother Kwaku. Later, Defendant again sent money to her to purchase trips of sand which she did and contracted workmen to mould blocks for construction of the house in dispute. Plaintiff continued that, Defendant and one Brother Nketiah (PW1) who deals in building materials entered into an agreement to Page 2 of 18 supply her with all building materials such as cement, nails, roofing sheets, iron rods etc. that were needed for the construction of the disputed house. Plaintiff attached some of the receipts (MoneyGram) of monies sent to her by the Defendant whiles in Trinidad and Tobago for the payment of building materials, workmanship etc. without any objection and same marked as Exhibit A series (A, A1 and A2). Plaintiff further said he contracted masons, carpenters and labourers for the construction of the two houses whiles she also fetched water for the construction, conveyed materials to site and single handedly supervised the building. Plaintiff testified that she has supervised and supported both physically and financially to the construction of the five bedrooms self-contained house and the three 3 bedrooms boys-quarters house both with kitchen, toilet and bath facilities situated on the same plot of land from start to finish. Plaintiff averred about a year ago the Defendant got married to another woman before returning from Trinidad and Tobago and has abandoned her and is currently living in the disputed house with the new wife. Plaintiff contended that the Defendant has wasted her time for the past 22 years and has finally abandoned her for another woman to enjoy the fruit of her sweat. That all efforts to resolve the matter including sending the matter to CHRAJ has failed hence the present action. Plaintiff called three (3) witnesses. Daniel Nketiah Yeboah, PW1. Kwaku Amponsah a.k.a Kramo (mason), PW2 and Plaintiff’s father; Kwabena Boamah, PW3. DEFENDANT’S CASE/ EVIDENCE Defendant also denied the various allegations of the Plaintiff against him. He filed a Statement of Defence to that effect. At the trial, he testified that in or around the year 1999, he entered into a relationship with Plaintiff and both lived together at Kokosua. Although he lived with the Plaintiff under the same roof, they were never married and that he never promised to marry the Plaintiff. To quote him verbatim, they were only in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship when subsequently Plaintiff got pregnant. The Page 3 of 18 Plaintiff’s parents then told him to put Plaintiff into apprenticeship to learn either tailoring or hairdressing which he agreed. When the child was four (4) years old he enrolled the child in school and also put Plaintiff into hairdressing apprenticeship. By then he had returned from Accra and had established a business in an iron container where he sold Nigerian movies and music on DVD and VCD. Defendant told the Court that subsequently Plaintiff stopped learning the hairdressing and requested to join him in his business. Defendant said to avoid arguments, he gave the Plaintiff the entire shop valued at GH₵2600.00 at the time and cash sum of GH₵400.00 in the current currency. This happened in the year 2007. That he travelled in the year 2008 and not 2006 to Trinidad and Tobago using a loan he secured and despite all the challenges he still never ignored his responsibilities but provided for Plaintiff and their only child. That whiles abroad, he sent Plaintiff money for rent and upkeep. He intimated that he took care of their child’s education and accommodation at the university and that he has been a responsible father to his child contrary to Plaintiff’s claims that he was not taking care of their child which made her send him to CHRAJ. At CHRAJ, they found that all allegations that he is an irresponsible father was untrue. Concerning the land in dispute, Defendant told the Court that it was his sister Adubea Mercy who bought the land after he sent her money to buy same at the time and not the Plaintiff. Adubea Mercy was called by the Defendant to testify as DW2. At the appropriate time her evidence she gave to the Court will be visited. He said it was the said Adubea Mercy who went to the District Assembly to work on the site plan and also obtained receipt covering the land for him which is in his custody. He denied the involvement of Plaintiff in the construction of the building. According to him, the construction was done by one Kramo who came to be known as (PW2) and it was his sibling Nketiah Bless (DW1) who supervised the construction and paid the workers. Defendant said he never sent money through Plaintiff for the construction of the house rather through his siblings namely; Adubea Mercy, Takyi Rawlings, Nketiah Simon, Nketiah Bless, Nketiah Kojo and Adubea Vida. Aside Defendant, Defendant called Page 4 of 18 three (3) witnesses in support of his case. That is Nana Kwaku Nketiah (DW1), Adubea Mercy (DW2) and Nketiah Simon (DW3) in place of Takyi Rawlings whose witness statement was withdrawn. Their evidence will be visited in the course of evaluating the evidence. ISSUES SET DOWN FOR TRIAL The issues which the Court identified for determination are as follows; a. Whether or not the Plaintiff and Defendant were in an amorous relationship and held themselves out as a married couple. b. Whether or not Plaintiff contributed to the building in dispute by supervising the entire construction of the building c. Whether or not Defendant promised to marry Plaintiff and subsequently breached the promise to marry her. d. Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to compensation of GH₵20,000.00 for Defendant allegedly wasting her time. EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF THE LAW The case at hand is a civil suit and the standard of proof is on the preponderance of probabilities. Per section 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323, “Preponderance of probabilities” is defined in the Evidence Act as; “that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence.” The burden of proof in civil cases is generally on the plaintiff and she has to lead evidence to establish every fact and issue raised in her pleadings. In the case of BARIMA GYAMFI V AMA BADU (1963) 2 GLR 596 the Court at holding 1 stated; “In a claim made by a plaintiff, there is no onus on the defendant to disprove the claim so that however unsatisfactory or conflicting the defendant’s evidence may be, it cannot avail the plaintiff. The evidence of the defence only becomes important if it can upset the balance of probabilities which the plaintiff’s evidence might have created in the plaintiff’s Page 5 of 18 favour or if it tends to corroborate the plaintiff’s evidence or tends to show that the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff was true.” Section 10 of NRCD 323 also provides as follows; “For the purposes of this Act, the burden of persuasion means the obligation of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court.” These provisions are clear that whatever fact a party alleges he must provide sufficient evidence to prove same. The statutory provisions in the Evidence Act have also received definite judicial pronouncements, more especially in the cases of; 1. ACKAH V. PERGAH TRANSPORT LTD AND OTHERS (2010) SCGLR 736 2. DZAISU V. GHANA BREWERIES LTD AND OTHERS (2007-2008) SCGLR 545. I begin with the resolution of the first issue that is whether or not the Plaintiff and Defendant were in an amorous relationship and held themselves out as a married couple. Black’s Law Dictionary defines concubinage as “a relationship of a man and woman who cohabit without the benefit of a marriage. The woman in the relationship, the concubine, cohabits as a wife without title. Although a concubine was expected to serve all the functions of a legitimate wife, she has no authority in the family or household, and was denied certain legal protections. “Meaning, where the relationship ripened into marriage, the status of the woman changes in law. On this, the Plaintiff testified that they entered into a relationship in 1999 and lived together as husband and wife in the same room from the year 2000-2006 until Defendant travelled. In some parts of the proceedings, Plaintiff referred to the Defendant as her husband and she as his wife. Although the Defendant does not deny having a relationship with the Plaintiff he vehemently denied that they lived as husband and wife and for him, they were only in a concubinage relationship and at no time did he promise to marry Plaintiff let alone marry her. According to Defendant he has not performed the marriage rites as per custom and for that matter Plaintiff is not his wife. Page 6 of 18 In the case of YAOTEY V QUAYE (1961) GLR 537 at 582 Ollennu, J. summed up the incidents of customary marriage as follows; “Now, one peculiar characteristic of our system of marriage which distinguishes it from the system of marriage in Europe and other places is that it is not just a union of this man and this woman: it is the union of the family of this man and the family of this woman. That union carries with it certain incidents. For example, it confers upon the family of the man a right to call upon the wife or her family, in certain eventualities, to perform certain customary rites, and imposes an obligation upon the wife and her family to perform those rights; and vice versa; i.e. it confers upon the family of the woman rights to call upon the man and his family to perform certain customary rites in certain eventualities, with a corresponding obligation upon the man and his family to perform the said customary rites. Since the family cannot exercise a right to demand the performance of the custom from the man or woman except where they, the family, have given consent to the marriage, and consequently recognise the man as the lawful husband to their daughter, and the woman as the lawful wife of their son, it necessarily follows that such demand by a family upon a man or woman to perform custom, is conclusive evidence that the relationship between that man and that woman from whom the demand is made, is one of lawful marriage, and not one of concubinage.” In Ghana there are cases that the Court have inferred the existence of an informal customary marriage once the incidents stated above are found in order to confer on such a person the rights deserving of a spouse even though there is no formal marriage. For instance, in QUAYE V KUEVI [1934] D. Ct. 31-37, 69 H. C, it was held that “the inability to show that the ceremony of the presentation of drinks took place to signify family consent to an alleged marriage was not sufficient to invalidate a marriage if the consent could be proved by other means and if it were also proved that the parties lived together as husband and wife. Thus, there need not be any formal ceremony to establish the existence of marriage. The conduct of the parties by holding themselves out in ways like attending family ceremonies like Page 7 of 18 funerals together, paying visits to relatives on each side occasionally, long cohabitation with or without children is sufficient.” Similarly, in the case of ESSILFIE VRS. QUARCOO (1992) 2 GLR 180 the Court found that customary marriage existed even though formal marriage rites have not been performed. In that case, the Court stated that the man and the woman held themselves out as husband and wife in the eyes of the whole world. On the evidence, even on the death of wife the Plaintiff’s family obliged the Defendant to perform the necessary family rites in the capacity of a husband and the Court found that the ingredients essential to a customary law marriage has been proven as espoused in the case of YAOTEY V QUAYE [1961] GLR 573- 584. SEE ALSO RE CAVEAT BY CLARA SACKITEY [1962] 1 GLR 180 The principle was also applied in the case of IRENE GORLEKU V JUSTICE POBEE & ANOTHER [2012] 42 GMJ 53; where the Court found that a valid customary marriage existed between the Respondent and the deceased who cohabited for 19 years and lived together as husband and wife in the eyes of the public. This means that where on the evidence (emphasis mine) the circumstance or the conduct of the parties will show that they were just not living or cohabiting together but they made people to believe they are more than in love relationship thus husband and wife and lived as such in the eyes of the whole world the Court will equate that relationship to that of a valid marriage. On the other hand, the learned judge Osei- Hwere J. in BADU V BOAKYE [1975] 1 G. L. R 283 H. C held as follows:” where a man lives with a woman not as a real wife but only as a concubine with the consent of the woman’s parents, that association cannot be translated into a valid customary marriage because the man and the woman are reputed to live as man and wife. Even though the Defendant described the Plaintiff as his wife and also described their association as marriage’ this was no more than another euphemism for concubine and concubinage respectively’’. The learned judge further stated that Akotogyan was the drink Page 8 of 18 provided by a man to inform the parents of a woman with whom he was cohabiting about the fact of their concubinage. To the learned judge, according to the customs of the parties who were from the Brong Ahafo region then, the Akotogyan did not create any legal relationship and a woman could not claim for breach of promise if the man decided to break their relationship as it did not serve as a token of a promise to marry. It is clear from the evidence that no marriage rites have been performed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff and this has been confirmed by the Plaintiff herself under cross-examination as follows; “Q. You are not my wife? A. My lady, I know you are my husband. My family is aware we are married couple. Likewise, your family is also aware that I am your wife. Q. Who in my family came to beg for your hand in marriage? A. You have not performed my marriage rites but your family and my family were all aware when we were staying together as a couple before you travelled outside the country. Q. For two parties to become husband and wife, the man’s family send drinks and dowry to go and perform the marriage rite of the woman. When was this marriage rite performed to indicate that we are married? A. You have not performed my marriage rites though but we have stayed together for almost 22 years before you travelled outside Ghana and even after you travelled you kept remitting me for those years and I also did a lot of things in your name more so, both families are aware of our relation for the past 22 years.” In order to establish a marriage relationship since there has been no marriage rites, the Plaintiff who is asserting same needs to prove that the parties held themselves out as husband and wife and not just that they lived together. On this the only evidence put forth by the Plaintiff is the assertion that both of their families are aware of their relationship as a couple without more by showing instances of the parties attending ceremonies, family meetings and other gatherings together or that there has been some Page 9 of 18 performance or a demand by the families of some performance of family rites relating to funerals and others in their capacities as husband and wife respectively. In the case of MAJOLAGBE V LARBI (1959) GLR 190, Ollenu J (as he then was) stated as follows; “Proof in law is the establishment of facts by proper legal means. Where a person makes an assertion capable of proof in some way, e.g. by producing documents, description of things, reference to other facts, instances or circumstances and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the witness box and repeating that averment on oath, or having it repeated on oath by his witness. He proves it by producing other evidence of facts and circumstances from which the Court can be satisfied that what he avers is true.” Moreover, during the trial, one of the witnesses that the Plaintiff called was her father; Kwabena Boamah (PW3). As a family member and a father responsible for accepting marriage in our traditional setting/ a key player in marriage, his evidence was very crucial on this issue. Contrary to what Plaintiff is asserting that family members including PW3 saw them as a married couple, it was not the case. I seek to reproduce the paragraph 3 of PW3’s witness statement which became his evidence-in chief as follows; “3. That at a point in time I demanded that the Defendant should come and perform the marriage rites or pay the bride price of the Plaintiff but the Defendant told the Plaintiff to tell me that he has no money, therefore I should give him time.” Clearly this means that at no point in time have family members including the PW3 a key family member recognized the parties as a married couple because if it is the case he will not demand that the marriage rites be performed. Even under cross- examination, PW3 admitted as a father that no marriage rites have been performed hence he acknowledged that there was no marriage. Page 10 of 18 In the absence of any strong evidence from the conduct of the parties that they did cohabit as husband and wife and the whole world viewed them as such, I hold that no marriage existed between the parties. The relationship between them was therefore that of concubinage. I will go into the legal position of the concubine as far as property rights are concerned later in this judgment. This leads me to the second issue of whether or not Plaintiff contributed to the building in dispute by supervising the entire construction of the building to make her entitled to a fair share. On this issue the Plaintiff asserted that she jointly acquired the disputed property consisting of Five (5) bedrooms and hall self-contained house and a three (3) bedrooms boys-quarters house both with kitchen and bath facilities on the same plot with Defendant. Her claim is premised on the fact that she supervised the construction of the disputed property single handedly from start to completion. She did this by contracting artisans including masons to dig foundation and mould blocks. She was also in charge of purchases, paid the artisans and fetched water as well as carried building materials to the site. She also said she bought the plot of land for Defendant then when he was away after he identified the land and Defendant showed interest by sending her money to buy same. Plaintiff attached three (3) statements of account from Ghana Commercial Bank LTD. (GCB) showing monies sent to her via MoneyGram at the time. I will examine the exhibits in the course of this judgment. Plaintiff called witnesses to testify to corroborate her testimony before the Court. PWI testified that he is a businessman who deals specifically in building materials and supplied building materials for the construction of the disputed building on credit to the Plaintiff herein on the instructions of Defendant whiles he was in Trinidad and Tobago. He went on further to say that the Defendant made the payments through the Plaintiff and same were paid to him. He attached extracts from his ledger book indicating payments made by the Plaintiff and marked as Exhibits B series; documents Page 11 of 18 showing the amount and quantities of building materials credited to the Plaintiff. According to him he remembers he supplied all materials used right from digging of the foundation to roofing were credited to the Plaintiff including the roofing sheets. Further he introduced one Osei who is a timber merchant to the Plaintiff for her to buy all the woods she needed to roof the house. He said until recently that a misunderstanding ensued between Plaintiff and Defendant, he continued to supply materials such as cement and plywood to the Defendant’s brother for plastering and ceiling respectively. He concluded by saying that Plaintiff contributed to the disputed building by supervising its construction as well as contributed in diverse ways even financially. PW2, testified that he is a mason and that he was engaged by the Plaintiff to continue construction of the 5-bedroom self-contained house for her because the mason who started the construction abandoned same. He told the Court that he started from the lintel level and completed the five-bedroom house including plastering. After the completion of the self-contained house, he was also made to construct 3 bedrooms’ kitchen toilet and bath from digging of the foundation to completion excluding plastering. That it was the Plaintiff who paid his workmanship and also provided all the materials that were needed on the site for the construction of the building as well as fetched water for the labourers throughout the construction of the house. PW2 was mentioned by the parties as the mason who constructed the house. His evidence was very crucial to the Court as a material witness. Plaintiff herself asserted that it was Defendant who sent her money to purchase the plot but Defendant says it is rather her sister Adubea Mercy who purchased the plot on his behalf. Also Plaintiff told the Court Defendant sent her money for the building, which she in turn used to pay the masons and labourers as well as purchase building materials. Now, it is not in dispute that the disputed property was built with the resources of the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not contribute to the disputed property Page 12 of 18 financially even if she did as she has casually stated she contributed in several ways, there is no proof she contributed physical cash. No evidence was led to that effect. Now, there is no denying of the fact that the Plaintiff also laboured in the construction of the houses, thinking that she was to own same with the Defendant once they were in a relationship as “husband and wife”. The Defendant and his witnesses were therefore not truthful when they testified that Plaintiff has no involvement whatsoever in the construction of the houses in contention. Now that it has been established that Plaintiff indeed supervised the construction of the house, does that make her a part owner or entitled to a share? The legal position of the concubine as far as property rights are concerned is that the party must be able to prove more than contribution in kind. The interest of the Plaintiff would have been different if she happened to be a wife. As a concubine, what would enable the Plaintiff to have an interest in the property is where the Plaintiff could establish that she expended actual money into the building and or that property documents covering the building were in the name of both parties. The Court in the recent Supreme Court case of MARIAN OBENG MINTAH V FRANCIS AMPENYIN [2015-2016] 2 SCGLR 1277 found on the evidence as well that the relationship of the parties was that of concubinage and spousal rights which only applied to marriage relationship will not apply at all. That proof of contributions in kind will not make Plaintiff a part owner rather she will be entitled to an equitable remedy for reimbursement i.e. she would have qualified for compensation as the equities will require. Even so, it must also be put on record that whiles it has been found that Plaintiff supervised the construction of the house, she did not do so singlehandedly as she alleges. The evidence on record shows that the Defendant’s siblings in one way or the other also supported in the construction of the house. The basis for saying this is that the Plaintiff’s exhibit A series tendered and admitted into evidence shows transactions of monies sent to purchase materials was woefully insufficient to have put up a whole house and Boys quarters totaling 8 bedrooms. Exhibit A series shows an amount Page 13 of 18 received for GH₵ 86.00 on 9/9/08, GH₵263.00 on 6/21/10 and GH₵222.84 on 3/9/2010. The total of these monies sent on only three (3) occasions could not have completed the house in dispute. Plaintiff does not also say there are more which she couldn’t tender into evidence. It was therefore doubtful especially when Defendant says these monies were meant for the upkeep of the parties’ son which Plaintiff has admitted such remittances. Responses elicited from Plaintiff’s own witness PW2 who deals in building materials confirm same. Relevant portions of his responses during cross-examination are captured below; “Q. I am putting it to you that the said Takyi Rawlings once deposited money into your account at GCB? A. That is correct. Q. Do you remember that Nketiah Bless came to your shop to pay cement? A. I know some of your siblings came to my shop in respect of your house to buy cement”. Since it has been found that Plaintiff contributed by supervising the house, the Court holds that Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for her labour and up and down in supervising the construction of the disputed house. The amount shall be determined at the latter part of the judgment. I now move on to resolve the last two issues. I will handle this together because they go hand in hand and the entitlement to damages is contingent on the proof of breach to marry. Even though Plaintiff has not specifically asked for damages for breach of promise to marry her relief for compensation suggest Defendant promised to marry her hence the claim for compensation. In the case of DJARBENG V TAGOE [1989-90] 1 GLR HC the Court was of the view that the promise made must not be mere statements or promises. For it to be binding, the alleged promise should receive the approval of the family. Flowing from this, it means for Plaintiff to succeed on this claim she has to Page 14 of 18 prove that the promise was made by Defendant to her and same communicated to her family by express means such as performing of knocking or going for the marriage list etc. Unfortunately, Plaintiff failed to lead evidence on this being her basis for the compensation she seeks for waste of her time. The Court will however hold that Defendant breached a promise to marry the Plaintiff given the Defendant’s acceptance and readiness to pay compensation as per the evidence on record. This readiness suggests to the Court that Defendant promised to marry Plaintiff thereby leading her to pin all her hopes on a future together and waiting for Defendant instead of moving on even when Defendant travelled outside the shores of Ghana. In the case of DONKOR V ANKRAH [2003-2004] SCGLR 125, the Supreme Court eloquently captured the factors to consider when awarding damages in cases of breach as follows; “In respect of damages, I think the Plaintiff is entitled to some measure of this. This is because from the evidence on the record the relationship between the parties was so notorious within the small community in which they cohabited that everybody is bound to know it. This is likely to take the Plaintiff off the marriage market and thereby affect her eligibility and suitability to get a partner. In this particular case for example the Plaintiff has been blessed with the birth of a son for the Defendant. This is an additional baggage that the Plaintiff must of necessity carry into a new relationship. This by itself is not an attraction to an eligible bachelor and may detract from the usual things that attract men to women. She may lose colour, may not kick and glitter before the birth of the child which is her second.” The Defendant has gone ahead to marry another woman and now stays with her. There is no indication Defendant wants and will marry Plaintiff who is still single and unmarried. The circumstances indicated in the Donkor case supra is similar fate the Plaintiff herein is likely to suffer hence the need for compensation. Plaintiff’s entire youthful years have been wasted whiles waiting for the Defendant coupled with disappointments, embarrassment, mockery and rejection she has to go through not to Page 15 of 18 talk of seeing another woman enjoying the fruits of her sweat when she should have been the one staying and enjoying the disputed house. Since time is not on her side in terms of age, the likelihood of finding another suitor will also be another challenge coupled with the “baggage” of having a son which in most cases repel a lot of men in our society. It is however important to state on record that Plaintiff notwithstanding the odds against her has somehow benefited from the friendship with Defendant during their cohabitation for about six (6) years and after Defendant travelled. On record, Defendant put Plaintiff through apprenticeship to learn hairdressing. Although it is his responsibility, Defendant has been responsible for the upkeep and shouldered the education of the parties’ only son with the support of the Plaintiff. He did not shirk his responsibilities. Defendant gave out his shop to the Plaintiff before travelling. Plaintiff also admitted that the Defendant supported her in putting up the store in which she currently sells. In considering all these, damages in the sum of GH₵15,000.00 will be fair and just in the view of the Court instead of GH₵20,000.00 as compensation for her (Plaintiff) waste of time on Defendant and also for supervision of the development of the disputed property. Plaintiff’s claim succeeds in part. Thus relief “a” fails and relief “b” succeeds. There will be no order as to cost. The parties shall bear their own cost. ............... SGD.................. H/W LINDA E. NYAHE ESQ. DROBO MAGISTRATE Page 16 of 18 Page 17 of 18