GYAKARI VRS. WASIRA (A11/19/24) [2023] GHADC 790 (7 December 2023)

07/12/23 IN THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT HELD AT AKROPONG ASHANTI ON FRIDAY THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023. BEFORE HIS WORSHIP ROCKSON A. K. KPODO ESQ. DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUIT NO. A11/19/24 NANA NTIM GYAKARI PLAINTIFF VRS. MADAM WASIRA **** DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: Plaintiff seeks an order from this honorable court: 1. To compel the defendant to remove her metal container which has blocked the front view of plaintiff’s house at Abuakwa. 2. Cost. In support of his claim plaintiff says that defendant has put her metal container in front of his house and that he has asked defendant to remove the said container from the place on several occasions but she refused. Plaintiff added that it was his son who entered into an agreement with defendant to place her shop on the land without his knowledge and that sometime ago the District Assembly even served a notice on the defendant to vacate the land but she refused PW1 added that he was the one who introduced defendant to his master for him to assist him to put the container on the land and that after she completed the agreement with his master, he was the one who helped the defendant to place the container on the land in dispute. PW2 added that he took GHC7000.00 from defendant to do the container for her and that the agreement is that the money she paid would be used as rent until her money is exhausted and that defendant’s money is left with only GHC5000 and that he is ready to refund the money to her so she can vacate the land. In his defense, defendant says that the balance left from the GHC8000.00 she gave them is GHC7000.00 and that she is ready to vacate the place as soon as her money is given to her. She added that the District Assembly notified them to vacate the land but they later changed their mind and asked them to stay on the land after they completed the construction of the road. DW1 added that being the NADMO director he is aware that the District Assembly has asked all those along the street to vacate the place in order to make way for the road construction but the order has been withdrawn by the assembly. DW2 added that she was not in the matter from the beginning and that it was when the misunderstanding ensued between the parties that she came in and offered to add GHC2000 to the GHC5000.00 that PW1 promised to give to defendant for the matter to end but defendant rejected the offer but she is ready to fulfil her promise once defendant accepts the offer made to her by PW1. DW2 concluded that the District Assembly has asked them to go back to their shop. From the above the court has identified the following issues for settlement: 1. Whether or not the District Assembly has asked defendant and others to vacate the place? 2. Whether or not plaintiff owes defendant GHC5000.00 as alleged by PW1? 3. Whether or not defendant is entitled to the GHC7000.00 she claims? Plaintiff’s case is that the District Assembly has issued a quit notice to the defendant to vacate the space and tendered the letter in evidence marked ‘A’. DW1 and DW2 told court that the District Assembly has withdrawn the order they served on defendant after they finished the coverts. The court is of the considered view from the above that once DW1 speaks on behalf of the District Assembly the court has concluded that the order has been vacated. In fact, a visit to the locus indicated that the coverts have been completed and the place has been cleared for the people who occupy the place to resume business. Again, the court is of the view that since DW2 has offered to top up the GHC5000.00 with GHC2000.00 for defendant and defendant has also accepted the offer the court would adopt same. The court is hereby, considering the totality of evidence led so far, enters judgment for the defendant for plaintiff to refund an amount of GHC5000.00 to her so that DW2 also adds GHC2000.00 to it so the defendant would vacate the place. Defendant should vacate the place leaving the container by the 31st day of December, 2023. No orders as to cost. ………………………………… H/W ROCKSON A. K. KPODO