ASANG VRS KODUA (A1/17/2022) [2023] GHACC 1139 (19 October 2023)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT KUMAWU-ASHANTI ON THURSDAY THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE HIS HONOUR JONATHAN ODARTEY, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. SUIT NO. A1/17/2022 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: FELICIA ASANG - PLAINTIFF VS. 1. OPANIN KODUA 2. ADDO, DRAUGHTSMAN DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT The plaintiff in this matter instituted an action against the 1st and 2nd defendants herein on 11th February, 2022 before this Honourable Court suing the defendants jointly and severally for one building plot at Bodomase or for the payment of current equivalent price of the land at Bodomase which the price was GH₵1,500.00 which she fully paid for in 2016. The defendants in their response to the issues raised in the statement of claim indeed admitted some of the averments and denied others. In paragraph 10 of the statement of claim the plaintiff had indicated that she remitted GH₵2,800.00 to the 2nd defendant as directed by the 1st defendant for the cost of two (2) plots of land at Bodomase. The 1st defendant in his statement of defence in paragraph 6 made it clear before this Court that Chief informed him that the plaintiff paid GH₵1,200.00 and GH₵1,500.00 respectively for both plots. The matter was however referred to the Court Connected ADR which was not successful. At the trial parties led evidence to establish that the plaintiff at this material Page 1 of 3 moment was allotted one building plot meaning that two plots had been paid for, yet she has access to one plot. Per the evidence in record it is interesting to note that 1st defendant after filing his statement of defence decided not to respond to the invitation and other processes of this Court even though there are records by way of prove of service of processes served on the 1st defendant. During the evidence taking of the 2nd defendant who per paragraph 5 of the statement of defence of the 1st defendant had been engaged to provide professional service by way of survey: visiting the sites, surveying and allocating the lands to buyers. He had also admitted through his evidence during cross examination that the plaintiff gave him GH₵2,800.00 to be given to the 1st defendant as instructed by the 1st defendant. This by inference is evident that the plaintiff gave a consideration to the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant who were acting together by way of principal-agent relationship. It is worthy to note that defendants in their defence and evidence on record haven’t denied the price of two (2) plots of land at Bodomase as at 2016 as quoted by the plaintiff which was GH₵1,500.00. This therefore suggests that with the discount of GH₵300.00 the plaintiff paid GH₵2,800.00 to the defendants which they have admitted. This means that the plaintiff paid for more than one plot of land. Per the evidence on record from the parties, plaintiff was only allocated one plot even though she had paid for two plots. At this stage the Court will avert its attention to the issue of the relationship between the 1st and 2nd defendants which is an agent-principal relationship and by extension there is a fiduciary relationship between the 1st and 2nd defendants. This then means that vicariously the 1st defendant’s actions in this arrangement is an agreed action by both defendants. Page 2 of 3 In the present circumstances, the evident on record and the issues raised above, the Court in simple terms Orders that the defendants jointly and severally refund an amount of money of the current price of a plot of land at Bodomase near Kumawu or allocate one plot of land in Bodomase to the plaintiff. (SGD) H/H JONATHAN ODARTEY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE 19TH OCTOBER, 2023 Page 3 of 3