KWARTEMAA VRS BOATENG (A1/12/23) [2023] GHADC 821 (12 December 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, KWASO/ASHANTI HELD ON TUESDAY THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023, BEFORE HIS WORSHIP SOLOMON KWASI ALOMATU DISTRICT MAGISTRAE. In the matter of; SUIT No: A1/12/23 MARTHA KWARTEMAA OF AGOGO V YAW BOATENG OF AGOGO PARTIES - PRESENT JUDGEMENT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. By William E Gladstone, 16th March 1868. This dictum is more relevant today than it was in the days of the originator. It must be a guide to all adjudicating bodies to ensure timely delivery of justice. This is a transferred case from the District Court, Agogo to District Court, Kwaso by the Supervising High Court Judge for Ashanti Region. The root of this legal tussle between the two parties herein is traceable to the Defendant when he sacked one Opoku, who was then a caretaker for Plaintiff, farming on the land in dispute at her instant in the year 2015, on the ground that it belongs to his late uncle one Agyekum. After fruitless efforts to reclaim the property, plaintiff herein, issued a writ of civil summons against the Defendant herein dated 12/4/18, in the Registry of the District, Agogo, seeking the following reliefs: Page 1 of 17 1. Declaration of title to the ownership, recovery and possession of five-acre farm land situate at “Bontre” on Agogo stool land bounded by the properties of Aunty Mercy, at the South Opanin Koo Kra at the East Opanin Kwadwo Oduro at the West and Opanin Kwame Opoku at the North. 2. A recovery Gh¢1,500.00 as rent for three years at Gh¢100,00 per an acre per year. From the writ of summons and the statement of claim accompanying it, it is the case of the plaintiff that, her late mother Abena Supine broke the virgin forest of the land in dispute now, in the 1960s. Through inheritance, she is the owner of the property in dispute. That the said farm land is situate at a place commonly known and called “Bontre” on Agogo Stool Land. That her late mother cultivated Cocoa on the land till 1983 when same was destroyed by fire outbreak in that year. She turned to cultivation of food crops. As she aged, she entrusted the farm to her brother Kwame Obeng. Later on, Kwame Obeng granted the secondary forest to one Agyekum, who happened to be his brother –in- law (Defendant’s uncle). She therefore prayed that the Court should grant her reliefs. Defendant having been served, filed statement of Defence and counter claims summarized as follows: He denied the material statement of claims of the plaintiff. He argued that his late uncle Kwadwo Agyekum acquired farm land measuring about 20 acres lying at a place commonly called “Bebome” (“Brahabebome”) on Agogo Stool land which portion now in dispute. The said land shares boundary with the following: Nana Yaw Frimpong, Maame Ama Obi, Kwame Afram, Fofie Kwame Ayribi, Maame Boto and “Brahabebome” – “Abrewapon” Road. After acquisition of the land, the said uncle planted Acacia Trees as boundary marks. During his life time he cultivated the land and remained in possession without a challenge from anybody. Kwadwo Kramo succeeded and continued to farm on the land till 1980 as result of old age he became weak, Defendant then took Page 2 of 17 over farming on the land till 1990 when he travelled to Lagos, Nigeria and left the land under care of Abena Gyaamah his sister. Upon his returned from Lagos, the farm was raided by Fulani herdsmen and the said sister became blind. The Fulani herdsmen left the land in the year 2015. He got to know that someone trespassed on to the land and cultivated water melon and plantains. He enquired and got to know that one Opoku was the one farming on the land. Defendant then confronted Opoku who revealed to the Defendant that Plaintiff granted him the land to cultivate. Defendant averred he confronted Plaintiff about it where she told him that, it was Kwadwo Oduro who showed her that the Farm land belong to her late uncle, Kwame Obeng. Defendant, accompanied by one Kwaku Owusu went to enquire from Oduro over what plaintiff told him. It was there Oduro said the land belong to the late Agyekum therefore he should take over the land. He therefore paid off the said Opoku for his crops on the land and took over. Therefore, plaintiff is not the owner of the land. Defendant therefore counterclaims as follows: • A declaration that Defendant is the beneficial owner of all that parcel of farm land situates at a place commonly known and called “Bebome” (“Brahabebome”) on the Agogo Stool Land measuring about 20 acres bounded by the properties of Nana Yaw Frimpong, Maame Ama Obi, Kwame Afram, Fofie, Kwame Ayiribi, Maame Boto and “Brahabebome Abrerewapon” Road. • Perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiff, either by herself, her representatives, assigns, privies and successors whatsoever and however described from entering upon or interfering with Defendant’s quite enjoyment of the farm land. • Costs including Counsel’s and filing fees. • Any further relief or orders as the Court may deem fit. The plaintiff also equally denied the counterclaims of the Defendant. Page 3 of 17 At the close of the statement of claims and statement of defence and counter claims, the following issues came up for answers: • Whether or not the mother of Plaintiff acquired in virgin state, the disputed farmland • Whether or not the late Agyekum an uncle of Defendant acquired the disputed farmland in virgin state. It is based on the above issues that both parties gave evidence or filed their respective witness statements which they relied on as their testimonies or cases. In her evidence in chief, it is the case of plaintiff that, her late mother, Abena Supine broke the virgin forest to the farmland described above in 1960s. Her late mother having acquired the land, cultivated Cocoa on same till 1983, when it was destroyed by fire. She thereafter turned into the cultivation of food crops thereon. As her mother aged, she entrusted the farm to her brother, the late Kwame Obeng. The said Kwame Obeng was a brother in -law to one Agyekum who happened to be an uncle to the Defendant herein. Based on this relationship, Kwame Obeng, the uncle of the plaintiff permitted the late Agyekum to cultivate onions and other arable crops on the disputed land. She avers that, her late mother, Abena Supine gifted her the land before she died about 25 years ago. Plaintiff argues as result of ill health granted the land to one Opoku to take care of. She concluded that about three years ago, Defendant unlawfully ejected her care taker from the farm and planted plantain which are now matured to her disadvantage, hence the present action. According to Opanin Kwadwo Oduro (PW1), a boundary owner, that in or around 1970 he acquired about 8-acre farm land at “Bontre” on Agogo Stool lands to share boundary with his brother Kwadwo Ayeribi and that of Plaintiff’s mother. That the plaintiff mother’s land is the subject matter dispute in Court. Later on, the mother of Plaintiff Page 4 of 17 entrusted her land to her brother Kwabeng Obeng and PW1 also did similarly to his sister Afia Fawoboto. He later saw the Defendant’s uncle Agyekum cultivating the Plaintiff mother’s land after it turned into secondary forest. After the death of Defendant’s uncle - Agyekum, he (defendant) is now claiming the ownership of the land, which is not true. During cross examination, counsel for Defendant denied the material evidence of PW1. When counsel put to the PW1 that he does not own any land that shares boundary with the disputed property he admitted it but explained that, it’s because he granted that land or his land to Maame Bortor that is why he does not share boundary presently. It therefore implies that PW1’s land is in possession of Bortor who now shares boundary with the land in dispute. For the Defendant, his late uncle Kwadwo Agyekum acquired a farm land in its virgin state, measuring about 20 acres lying at place called commonly called “Bebome” (“Brahabebome”) on Agogo Stool land, of which a portion is now in dispute. It shares boundaries as follows: Nana Yaw Frimpong, Maame Ama Obi, Kwame Afram Opanini, Fofie, Kwame Ayiribi, Maame Boto and “Brahabome” to “Aberewapon” Road. Defendant avers that his late uncle upon acquisition planted Acacia Trees as the boundary features between his farm land and that of; Opanin Kwame Afram, Opanin Kofi Fofie, Kwame Ayiribi and these boundary features are still present. That the said uncle during his life time was in control, possession and farming on the land without any hindrance. He granted portions of the land to family members who cultivated food crops. When the said uncle died, Kwadwo Kramo succeeded him and continued with the farming business on the land. During cross examination Plaintiff denied the material evidence of Defendant. Page 5 of 17 Obeng Jacob is DW1. For him, his late father Opanin Kwame Opoku, acquired the farmland in its virgin state at a place called “Bontre”. The said farm land does not share boundary with the Plaintiff nor the land in dispute. His father after acquisition of the land remained in possession and cultivation till his death. He regularly accompanied the father to the farm since his infancy. That he had been in charge of his father’s farm since his death in 1968. His father’s farm does not share boundary with that of the plaintiff as she claimed. He got to know the farm of Kwadwo Agyekum and his brother Kwadwo Kramo sometime in the year 1983 during the general fire outbreak that occurred in the Country, when they were trying to bring the fire under control. He saw the Acacia tree as boundary features, he asked one Kwabena Obeng who told him that they were the boundary features of the late Agyekum, the Defendant’s uncle. During cross examination, DW1 denied plaintiff assertion that her land shares common boundary with the land of his father. Plaintiff however insisted that her land shares common boundary with that of the father of DW1. In fact, DW1 insisted that he knows the land very well because he followed his father to the farm since infancy. Plaintiff posed what I consider as the most important questions: Q. I put it to you that Agyekum whom you mentioned in paragraphs 14 and 15 of your witness statement is not the original owner of the land you said belong to him. A. I cannot tell. Q. And that Agyekum begged my mother Supine who allowed him to cultivate the land. therefore, if you saw him there, the land does not belong to him. A. I cannot tell. Page 6 of 17 According to Robert Owusu (DW2), in the year 2015, Defendant asked him to accompany him to see one Kwadwo Oduro to discuss issue concerning his land that one Opoku had trespassed onto. They went and met Kwadwo Oduro. Defendant told him that Opoku had trespassed on to defendant’s land. When Defendant confronted the said Opoku, he said it was the Plaintiff who granted the land to him. Defendant then proceeded to the Plaintiff, armed with the information he had. DW2 said when the Defendant asked the plaintiff about what he heard, Plaintiff also turned round to say it was Opanin Kwadwo Oduro who had indicated and showed that the portion of the farm land belongs to her uncle, the late Kwame Obeng. Opanin Kwame Oduro conceded that the land indeed belongs to the late Kwadwo Agyekum. That the late Kwadwo Oduro advised the Defendant to refund the expenses Opoku incurred and take over the farm. This the Defendant did. During cross examination of the DW2, the plaintiff denied his material evidence. At this point I must state that the evidence of DW2 is against a dead person that is the late Kwadwo Oduro therefore must be treated with mind of suspicion. At the close of the case for the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the following have emerged as facts not in dispute: 1. It is a Farm land that is in dispute. 2. It is Plaintiff who put one Opoku in charge of the land. 3. Defendant drove away the said Opoku from the land 4. Defendant is currently in possession. Having resolved the above as facts not in dispute, the following issues, which are not different from the earlier issues stated above call for determination: Page 7 of 17 • Whether or not it is the mother of the plaintiff who first acquired the property in its virgin state. • Whether or not Defendant’s uncle acquired the land in virgin state. • Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Gh¢1,500.00 as rent for three years at Gh¢100.00 per an acre per year. It must be stated that, in this case, the evidence on both sides is historical, is based on oral evidence and conflicting without any document in support. I therefore resolved to examine the evidence of the witnesses or the case of both sides, using the following yardsticks: 1. Chronology of events 2. Consistency of evidence 3. And recent acts of ownership “Where in an action, the parties claim and counterclaim for a declaration to title to the same piece of land, each party bears the onus of proof as to which side has a better claim of title against his/her adversary, for a counterclaimant is as good as the plaintiff in respect of a property which should assays to make his /her own. Osei v Korang (2013) 58GMJ 1 @ 22. Simple put both parties share the burden of proof equally. I now proceed to examine the issues as they appeared above together. It is the contention of Plaintiff that her late mother first acquired the Farmland in its virgin state in the 1960s. Thereafter began cultivating the land, till due to old age she passed the baton to her brother Obeng. It is actually Obeng who permitted the late Agyekum, the uncle of Defendant to farm on the land when it turned into Secondary Forest. The Defence counsel denied this piece of evidence through cross examination, but Plaintiff stood her Page 8 of 17 ground. Defendant on the other hand asserts that his late uncle broke the virgin forest to the land in dispute and cultivated same over the years. From the claim of the Plaintiff, denial and counterclaim of the defence, the question is who first broke the virgin forest? It therefore calls for tracing of roots of title by either side conclusively. According to the Plaintiff, her late mother broke the virgin forest in the 1960s. The Counsel for the Defendant challenged her on this evidence under cross examination. She said Agyekum came to beg, her late mother who broke the virgin forest during the Kwame Nkrumah Regime (196066). It turned into a Secondary Forest during the Elections (1969 Elections) that brought the Busia Government into Power. It is important to bear in mind that even though DW1 denied that plaintiff’s mother originally acquired the land in dispute, he avers his father acquired his land and was farming till he died 1968. DW1 did not state when his father acquired his land except to say he followed his father to the farm since infancy. Given that Plaintiff states that her mother broke the virgin forest in the 1960s, I presumed that, the father of DW1 is probably older and acquired his land before 1960s, yet DW1 could not tell if the uncle of Defendant broke the virgin forest to the property in dispute. The Battle for boundary owners: The plaintiff named her boundary owners as follows: Aunty Mercy, at the South Opanin Koo Kra at the East Opanin Kwadwo Oduro at the West and Opanin Kwame Opoku at the North, per her particulars of claim. PW1 has said her land shares boundary with land in dispute. When challenged by the Counsel, she explained that she granted her land to Afia Fawoboto therefore does not presently shares boundary there. Among the persons, Counsel for Defendant suggested to Plaintiff under cross examination, even though, she denied is Maame Bortor. It appears to me that the names Afia Fawoboto PW1 referred to and Maame Bortor the defence referred is one and the same person, probably because it is local names, wrongly spelt by Page 9 of 17 whoever recorded the name. That being the case, l am of the respectful view that, be it whatever it is the name spelt. PW1’s claim that she was a boundary owner and later granted her land to Afia Fawoboto (Maame Bortor), and counsel identified Maame Bortor (Afia Fawoboto) as one of the boundary owners, is most probable. Relative Ages: the plaintiff is 76 years old and Defendant 67 years old. From these ages, it is probable that, the mother of the Plaintiff is older than the uncle of the Defendant. Since both mother of plaintiff and uncle of Defendant farmed throughout their lives, l presumed that the mother of Plaintiff might have begun farming in the early 1960s before, the uncle of Defendant did. Defendant on the other hand, did not state when his uncle Agyekum broke the virgin forest. He however stated when Kwadwo Kramo succeeded the late Agyekum, and continued to farm on the land. As result of old age and weakness of the late Kramo, Defendant began cultivating the land; planting beans, maize and other food crops as at 1980. Following the death of Kramo, Defendant took over the farming in 1983. It is important to note that DW1 in his evidence in chief said, he got to know the farm land of Kwadwo Agyekum and his brother Kramo sometime 1983, when they were trying to bring under control when the fire outbreak of 1983. The question is, if Defendant per his evidence by the year 1980 was farming on the land, by which time Kramo had succeeded Agyekum and by 1983, Kramo died and he took over the farming completely, how come Defendant was not part of the persons who put out the fire of 1983, as DW1 claimed he saw? In fact, from the evidence of Defendant, Agyekum had long died. And by 1980 Kramo who became the successor could no longer farm, and died before 1983, when Defendant took full control of the farm, then how could brothers who died before 1980 be putting fire outbreak that occurred in 1983? Respectfully, if indeed DW1 saw both Agyekum and Kramo putting out the 1983 fire outbreak, then DW1 most probably saw ghosts. Clearly the evidence of DW1 is in conflict with that of the Defendant. It is settled Page 10 of 17 law that, the purpose for which a party calls a witness to testify is to support his case or evidence. Therefore, where the testimony of the witness called is in conflict with the caller’s evidence, in the absence of any reasonable explanation relating to the conflicting testimony on a material issue, no judicial weight can be attached to such conflicting evidence. Atadi v Ladzekpo [1981] GLR218. Additionally, when the plaintiff challenged the DW1 under cross examination on the assertion that the late Agyekum originally acquired the property in contention, he could not stand his ground. See below: Q. I put it to you that Agyekum whom you mentioned in paragraphs 14 and 15 of your witness statement is not the original owner of the land you said belong to him. A. I cannot tell. It must be pointed out that, plaintiff argued that the said Agyekum never owned the land in contention. And that if someone saw him working on the said land, it was simply her late uncle Obeng who permitted him to farm on the land. She argued further that, as result of a marriage between her uncle, Obeng and a relative of Agyekum, that was why her uncle, Obeng permitted Agyekum to farm on the land. Even though the defence resisted the said alleged permission, the Defence never denied the said relationship between Obeng and Agyekum. According to Opanin Kwadwo Oduro, (PW1) that in or around 1970 he acquired about 8 acres farm land at “Bontre” on Agogo Stool lands to share boundary with his brother Kwadwo Ayeribi and that of Plaintiff’s mother. Defence challenged him that he never shared any boundary there. I have already resolved above that PW1 did share boundary there. All in all, with Chronology of events and Consistency of evidence as guide, based on evidence on record and the above examination, on the question of who first broke the virgin forest or traced his or her roots of title to the property in dispute, it is my respectful Page 11 of 17 position that, on the balance of probabilities, it is the mother of Plaintiff who probably Broke the Virgin Forest to the Land in dispute. Additionally, both sides claim for declaration of ownership. Each party tried to assert acts of ownership and undisturbed possession. It is settled law that, a person in possession attracts the protection of the law, even against the world until or unless the true owner can proof superior title. In re Adjancote Acquisition; Klu v Agyemang II [1982-83 GLR852 and Twifo Oil Plantation Ltd v Ayisi [1982-83] 881. It is not in doubt that, presently, the Defendant is in possession of the farm land. Therefore, has the protection of the law, unless Plaintiff can dislodge him with superior proof. The question is, has Plaintiff attained that status to displace the Defendant from his current possession? Defendant said he took the total control of farming on the land from 1983 to the year 1990 when he left the farm in the care of his sister Maame Abena Gyaamah and travelled to Nigeria. On his returned herdsmen have raided the farm and the said sister was blind and indoors. Plaintiff admitted Gyaamah farmed on the land but denied Defendant left it in her care and insisted she did so in the Page 12 of 17 name of Agyekum, Defendant’s late uncle. Defendant continued that the herdsmen left the land (farm) somewhere 2015, he got to know that someone trespassed and cultivated watermelon and Plantains on the land. His investigation led him to discover that it was one Opoku, who did that. At this point, I ask the following questions: • When the sister of Defendant became blind and could no longer go the farm, was there no other relatives who could have taken over? • When did defendant return to Ghana when he left to Lagos since 1990? • Herdsmen invaded the farm and left somewhere 2015, there Defendant discovered that one Opoku farmed, then how did he farm when herdsmen were on the land? From evidence of Defendant since the late Agyekum acquired the farm land, anytime a particular person could no longer farmed on the land, a relative took over and continued the farming that was how the baton fell on him. Therefore, when he was leaving for Lagos, he passed the baton to his sister. She became blind and could no longer go to the farm. If indeed the farm is for him which the said sister stepped into his shoes and became blind, why did nobody take over from her? Is it the case that there were no other relatives around then? I certainly do not think so. Fast forward, if Gyaamah could no longer farm as result of her situation, and to add salt to injury herdsmen invaded the land, how did Opoku manage to farm at that material time, since the herdsmen left 2015? If the presence of the herdsmen did not prevent Opoku from farming on the land, then equally it could not have prevented any relatives of Defendant from farming when Gyaamah became incapacitated. In any case, the Plaintiff denied Fulani Herdsmen were on the land. It simply means that Opoku could not have planted after the Fulani Herdsmen allegedly left in 2015. In my view, Plaintiff’s position that Herdsmen never invaded the land is most probable. Page 13 of 17 It should be noted that Plaintiff had contended that the said Gyaamah farmed in the name of the Ageykum. It is not in doubt that, it is the plaintiff who put the said Opoku on the land, till defendant drove him away claiming ownership of the land. That act pushed the Plaintiff to take the present action. In my opinion, it is because, Gyaamah, Defendant himself for that matter any other relative knew or knows that, the land does not belong to the late Agyekum and by extension the Defendant, that is why when she became blind and in the absence of the Defendant no relatives of his took over the farm. Plaintiff, on the other hand, knowing very well that the land belongs to her mother, apparently when Gyaamah who was farming in the interest of Agyekum but could no longer farm, took over rightfully what belongs to her and granted same to one Opoku, who undoubtedly remained in cultivation till was sacked by the Defendant. It appears to me that Defendant went to Lagos to seek greener pastures since 1990, which unfortunately turned to brown pastures, as result he returned to try if he could stake a claim to that which he knew did not belong to him. I am convinced that based on the evidence of the defendant or by necessary inference since 1990 to 2015, (for 24 years) he has never been in actual or constructive possession of the land. His counterclaim is therefore caught by section 10 of the Limitation Act 1972 (NRCD 54), which states: “Action to recover land are barred after twelve (12) years from the date on which the right of action accrued to the person bring it, or if it first accrued to some person through whom he claims to that person”. Also, in Sam v Noah [1992-93] GBR 261, the Supreme Court said; “the appellant’s plea of illiteracy was no excuse, as well the alleged ill health of 1st defendantappellant of which proof was lacking. The delay of almost two years and three months in bringing the application was too long and the grounds or excuses could not justify the long delay. On the strength of this authority, it is my respectful opinion that, in the present case, even if Defendant pleads absence from Ghana, for delay in asserting his right, it would not hold water, because, this is a family land or farm, and he put his sister in charge before he left the country, though he claimed she became blind and could Page 14 of 17 no longer go the farm, I strongly believe there are other family members who could have made a claim to the property if indeed it belongs to them. Plaintiff has always been in possession all along until Defendant drove her caretaker or agent Opoku away in the year 2015. Plaintiff began protesting unsuccessfully, in the same year, hence she initiated the present action in the year 2018. Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. It is my view that Plaintiff had proved superior title to dislodge Defendant, who is presently in possession, which plaintiff has been protesting till to date. It is instructive to know that, Defendant claimed that, when Opoku told him that it is Plaintiff who granted him the land, he confronted Plaintiff. She in turn mentioned Kwadwo Oduro as the one who showed her that the land belongs to Plaintiff’s uncle, the late Kwame Obeng. Armed with this information, Defendant proceeded to said Oduro to find out from him. Oduro conceded to him that the land belongs to the late Agyekum, Defendant’s uncle, therefore he should go and reposes the land. It was based on this that he paid Opoku for his expenses and took over. Plaintiff denied she ever said what Defendant attributed to her above. If indeed, this is what Oduro told Defendant, then why did Oduro not give evidence to support him? There is no explanation as to why Oduro would say that and yet when it matters most, he did not give evidence to support Defendant. In fact, the said Oduro gave evidence in support of Plaintiff as PW1. At this juncture, I must point out that, plaintiff claims her late mother Gifted the property in dispute to her, in the mother’s life time. I combed through the evidence on record, but could not find credible evidence to support the assertion of customary Gift. However, I found evidence to show that she had been in possession and exercising overt acts of ownership over the years. Therefore, lack proof of gift is not fatal to her case, given that possession is ninth-tenth of ownership. In Re Modia Veneer (Gh) L.t.d v Amna Gyebua xv (2011) 25GMJ 164, Wood CJ, held in an action for declaration of title to land, the person asserting title has the burden to prove root of title, mode of acquisition and Page 15 of 17 various acts of possession of the subject matter of litigation. It is my respectful view, between the two parties, it is Plaintiff who met this legal requirement to tilt the scale of justice to her favor. I therefore hold that she is the owner of the land. On the issue of recovery Gh¢1,500.00 as rent for three years at Gh¢100.00 per an acre per year, as claimed by the Plaintiff, I did not find any evidence on record to support it. I take it that she abandoned it, therefore dismissed same. In conclusion, having considered the totality of the evidence on record, using the yardsticks as stated above, on the balance of probabilities, Section 11 and 14 of NRCD (Evidence Act 1975), Abed Nortey v African Institute of Journalism (2014)77GMJSCM, whose version of the story meet the standard threshold to tilt the scale of justice in his or her favour; in my respectful view, it is the plaintiff. I therefore enter judgment for plaintiff against the defendant. The entire counter claims by the Defendant are dismissed. The following reliefs granted; • A declaration title and ownership in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of all that parcel of farmland as described in the writ of summons above. • Recover of possession of the parcel of farm land as described in the writ of summons. • Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, either by himself, his representatives, assigns, privies and successors whatsoever and however described from entering upon or interfering with Plaintiff’s quite enjoyment of the farm land. Page 16 of 17 In awarding costs against the Defendant for the Plaintiff, I took the following into consideration. • The case commenced since 2015 at District Court, Agogo and had seen several adjournments mostly due to the acts of the defence. • The cost and risks involved having to travelled in and out of Courts. • Costs of Court processes filed. • Having been denied the fruits of the farm land by the Defendant for over five years. • Finally, the psychological trauma this elderly Plaintiff (an illiterate) had to go through since the year 2015 to reclaim what rightfully belongs to her. I therefore award punitive costs of Gh¢10,000.00 against the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff. The payment should be made into Court within 7 days. SGD H/W SOLOMON K. ALOMATU DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 12/12/23 COUNSEL: DR. FRANK LISTOWELL DEBRAH YEBOAH FOR DEFENDANT. Page 17 of 17