ASIAM & ANOTHER VRS GYATO (A2/04/2025) [2024] GHADC 640 (31 October 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT DAMBAI ON THURSDAY 31ST OCTOBER 2024 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP ALHASSAN DRAMANI, ESQ. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 1. KWAME ASIAM 2. MENSAH CYNTHIA VRS CASE NO: A2/04/2025 PLAINTIFFS TIMOTHY GYATO DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARTIES PRESENT PARTIES UNREPRESENTED JUDGEMENT The Plaintiffs caused a Writ of Summons to be issued against the Defendant for the following reliefs: (i) “Recovery of GH¢1,800.00 being an amount Plaintiffs paid to Defendant for a half plot of land since August, 2023. (ii) Interest on the said GH¢1,800.00 from August, 2023 till date of final payment (iii) General damages (iv) Any other order(s) as the Court may deem fit. (v) Costs”. The Defendant denied liability of all the claims. THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF The Plaintiffs are a husband and wife and reside at Dambai Banka. According to Plaintiffs in August, 2023 one Simon Gyato who is the father of Defendant approached 1st Plaintiff and proposed to sell one plot of land situate near the ECG office to Plaintiff. 1st Plaintiff said he in turn spoke with a friend who expressed interest in buying the above stated land. 1st Plaintiff avers that Simon Gyato consequently made the Defendant to lead them to the land for inspection and demarcation. Plaintiff said after Defendant demarcated the one plot of land for his friend there was an adjourning half plot of land which Defendant claim to be his and proposed to sell same to 1st Plaintiff at the cost of GH¢2,000.00. According to 1st Plaintiff he made an initial deposit of GH¢1,000.00 to Defendant and later Defendant came to their house and collected an additional GH¢800.00 from 2nd Plaintiff (1st Plaintiff’s wife) with an outstanding balance of GH¢200.00 to be paid to Defendant. Plaintiffs said they immediately went into possession of the half plot of land and erected boundary pillars on it. Plaintiffs said the Defendant gave them a receipt to be taken to the stool land secretariat for endorsement but when defendant took the receipt there the officers refused to endorse it because the Defendant’s name was not on the receipt. According to Plaintiffs their own investigation revealed that the defendant had already sold the land to someone, however all efforts made by them to retrieve their money from Defendant was unsuccessful. The 1st Plaintiff testified for himself and on behalf of 2nd Plaintiff and tendered in evidence one exhibit as Exhibit “A” (Land receipt) The Plaintiffs called two witnesses as PW1 and PW2. PW1 was Yaw Yentumi, he told the court that he was present when the Plaintiff negotiated with the defendant for the land in question. He added that he was also at the site when the defendant showed 1st plaintiff the land. According to PW1 he together with the defendant were those who assisted Plaintiff to erect the boundary pillars on the land. PW1 again stated that he was present when Plaintiff paid an amount of GH¢1,000.00 to Defendant. PW2 was Ama Nyarko she told the court that during last year’s farming season the Defendant gave her a plot of land behind the ECG office for farming. According to PW2 this year he again approached the Defendant for allocation of farm land and the Defendant graciously gave him another one. PW2 stated that whilst she was working on the land she was confronted by 1st Plaintiff who claimed ownership of the land. Thereafter the Plaintiff closed their case. THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS In stating his case, the Defendant vehemently denied selling a half plot of land to the plaintiffs. Defendant stated that even though he knows the Plaintiffs he has not sold a plot of land to them or collected money from any of them. The Defendant did not call any witness and hence brought his case to close after his evidence. 1) The legal issue to be determined is whether or not the Plaintiffs paid an amount of GH¢1,800.00 to defendant for a half plot of land. 2) Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to recover GH¢1,800.00 from Defendant. The standard of proof in civil cases is on a balance of probabilities as per sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD, 323); and the general rule is that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. As stated in the case of Bisi & Others v. Tabiri alias Asare [1987-88] 1 GLR 360 @ 371: 'The standard of proof required of a plaintiff in a civil action is to lead such evidence as will tilt in his favour the balance of probabilities of the particular issue. The rampant encounter with the pleaders demand for strict proof has never been taken to call for an inflexible proof either beyond reasonable doubt or with mathematical exactitude or such precision as would fit a jig saw puzzle. With the definition supplied, preponderance of evidence, in short, becomes the trier’s belief in the preponderance of probability’. Plaintiffs case was that they acquired the land from Defendant in August 2023, made an initial deposit of GH¢1,000.00 to Defendant and later paid GH¢800.00 through 2nd Plaintiff. 1st Plaintiff’s evidence was corroborated by PW1. He told the court that he was present when 1st Plaintiff and Defendant negotiated the price before Plaintiff made the payment to defendant. PW1’s further evidence was that he was at the site when Defendant showed and demarcated the land to Plaintiff and both he and Defendant helped Plaintiff to erect the boundary pillars. Defendant did not in any way challenge the testimony of PW1. PW2 on her part also further corroborated the account of the Plaintiff. She testified that she acquired the land from Defendant for farming but whilst working on the land she was confronted by 1st Plaintiff. In his pleadings Defendant strongly denied leasing the land to Plaintiff. He also denied collecting any monies from the Plaintiffs for the purpose of selling the land in question to them. However, when Defendant came under cross examination by 1st Plaintiff on 24/09/2024 his story quickly changed. Below are excerpts of the encounter: Q. So your case is that in the year 2023 I did not acquire a land from you not so. A. The land you acquired from me was for farming purposes only and not for building. Q. Where is the land you gave me for farming situated. A. It is around the Immigration Head quarters area opposite the Bosatsu hotel. Q. So who is the owner of the said land A. It belongs to my father Q. I put it to you that you sold the land to me in the presence of PW1. A. No Q. How much did I pay to you before you gave me the land for farming. A. I can not remember. Q. What is the size of the land you gave to me A. One plot. It can be gleaned from the cross examination above that the Defendant is not consistent with his story. In his defence he unambiguously stated that he never sold any land to the Plaintiffs nor did he take any money from them. However, under cross examination he has now admitted that the Plaintiff acquired a plot of land from him. He further admitted that he collected some money from 1st plaintiff, but cleverly refused to confirm how much he collected from the Plaintiff. From the evidence adduced during the trial, I am convinced that the plaintiffs paid an amount of GH¢1,800.00 to defendant for a half plot of land situate lying and being at ECG near the Ghana Immigration office Dambai. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are to recover the sum of GH¢1,800.00 they paid to Defendant in August, 2023 for a half plot of land. Defendant is to pay interest on the said sum at the prevailing commercial rate from August, 2023 till date of final payment. Cost of GH¢1,200.00 is awarded in favour of Plaintiffs against the Defendant. SGD H/W ALHASSAN DRAMANI DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 31ST OCTOBER, 2024. 6