Mansah Vrs Behome [2022] GHADC 73 (15 September 2022)

IN THE DISRICT COURT HELD AT KENYASI FROM MONDAY THE 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP CLEMENT KWASI ASOMAH AS MAGISTRATE SUIT NO: BR/KS/05/2023 AKOSUA MANSAH FOR HERSELF AND ON BEHALF OF HER HUSBAND OP/ YAW FRIMPONG VRS MAAME ADWOA BEHOME AND ANOR JUDGMENT Plaintiff on 15/09/22 was issued out of the Registry of this court on writ of civil summons claiming the following reliefs; a. Recovery of GH¢45,000 as compensation for destroying plaintiff’s 4 acrage crop and teak farm. b. General Damages c. Costs. To these reliefs the Defendants denied liability so in the interest of justice, the parties were given a hearing. THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE Besides herself the plaintiff called one witness. The evidence of the plaintiff is that the defendants granted a piece of land to her and the husband to cultivate teak on Abunu tenancy basis. Plaintiff stated that they were done JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA with the cultivation but before same could be shared the defendants have gone ahead and allocated the land to people as building plots so they have destroyed the teak. Hence, the instant action. Pw1; Yaw Fosu’s evidence was that the land was first granted his brother in-law who later gave it to the defendant. Pw1 said the defendants later added more land to the original one and charged GH_2300.00 but the plaintiff paid drinks of GH¢150.00 and pleaded for time for time to settle the GH¢300.00. Pw1 concluded that the plaintiffs once sold some of the teak trees to him and they him they were going to share with the defendants. Pw1 maintained under cross examination that he and his parents (plaintiffs) met the defendants the house of the defendants for the negotiations on the land. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff closed her case after the evidence of pw1. THE CASE THE DEFENDANTS The 2nd defendant testified on her own behalf and on behalf of the 1st defendant and called no witness. According to the defendant the plaintiff only cultivated cassava and pepper on a half plot of their land. The defendants concluded that they had already cultivated their teak on the land when the plaintiff came onto the land and that they had never granted any 4 acrage land to her to cultivate teak, on “abunu” tenancy. The defendants closed their case after their evidence. LOCUS INSPECTION JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA At the close of the case of both parties and at their instance this court embarked on locus inspection to acquaint itself with the situation on the ground. At the inspection we found teak trees on portions of the land but whereas the plaintiff claimed she and the husband cultivated same the defendant said the teak were planted by a member of her family called ………… and other by themselves. In about 45 minutes the inspection came to an end. ISSUES The following issues arose for determination by this court. 1. Whether or not the Defendants granted land to the plaintiffand her husband. 2. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to her claim. NOW THE ISSUES Issue one – Whether or not the plaintiffs were granted land by the defendants. The plaintiff was emphatic that she and her husband in the company of their son (pw1) went to the house of the defendants for the negotiations on the land where they paid GH¢50.00 as drinks and promised to pay the GH¢300.00 the defendants charged for the grant. This piece of evidence was corroborated by pw1 in all material respects. The defendants vehemently denied this piece of evidence by the plaintiffs and contended that the plaintiffs and their son had never come to their house for any grant of land. The question is whose story should the court belief. JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA The law however, is that he who alleges assumes the onus of proof see the case of JAIBI VRS STATE HOTEL (1968) GLR471. In the instant case since it is the plaintiffs who alleged that the defendants granted land to them on “abunu” tenancy, assumed the onus to prove that assertion. So has the plaintiff been able to discharge this legal burden? Now the defendants in their statement of claim and in their evidence in-chief stated that when the plaintiffs came to them they granted the very portion they granted to the in-law of the plaintiffs to cultivate crops but not teak on the land before plaintiffs entered. This clearly is an admission that the plaintiffs went to the defendants and infact there was a grant of land to the plaintiff. The question is if the plaintiffs went to the defendant and there was a grant for whatever purpose why did they deny when they had the opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff. The only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn in the circumstance is that the defendants were been economical with the truth when they said they hd not made any grant. I therefore find in a facts that the defendants granted a piece of land to the plaintiff. Issue one is accordingly resolved in favour of the plaintiff. Issue two – whether or not the plaintiff planted teak. It was the case of the plaintiff that upon the acquisition of the land about 15 years ago, they cultivated teak some of which she had harvested and shared the proceeds with the defendants and at a point the 1st defendant even told her not bring the money when her daughter (2nd df) was present. JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA The defendant vehemently denied this piece of evidence by the plaintiff and contended that the teak which the plaintiff used to sell was cultivated by them so they told her to inform them if anybody needed teak but the plaintiff was rather selling to them. It is worthy of note that at the locus inspection the plaintiff showed us some teak trees which according to her were cultivated by her but the defendants (2nd df) mentioned a family member as the one who cultivated it and yet the defendants did not call that person as a witness to prove that she cultivated that teak but not the plaintiff. There was no evidence on record to show that person was not available to be called as a witness. The question also is if the teak were not planted by the plaintiff why was she the one selling and even though the 2nd defendant said plaintiff was giving them any amount she wanted they did not stop her from selling. I am of the view that the defendants granted land to the plaintiff to cultivate teak on abunu tenancy for how on earth can the plaintiff come to court to claim a share of someone’s teak farm if she indeed was the one who planted it. I find on a fall that the plaintiff and her husband cultivated teak on the land. The principle is that the court ought to refer corroborated evidence against uncorroborated evidence unless on the face of the unds, the corroborated evidence is either incredible or impossible. In the instant case whereas the plaintiff’s evidence is corroborated by pw1, that of the defendants stood in total isolation. At least they could have called a witness to corroberate their evidence that they cultivated the teakbefore the plaintiff went onto the land. I therefore resolve issue two JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA also in favour of the plaintiff. Issue three – whether r not the plaintiff is entitled to her claim. It is the claim of the plaintiff that her 4 acrage teak farm had been destroyed so she is claiming an amount of GH¢45,000 as compensation and damages. The question is how did she arrive at that figure. Plaintiff did not state the price of a teak tree and the number of trees destroyed. It is also petriment to note that it was it was “abunu” tenancy so the plaintiff would not be entitled to the entire 4 acrage farm per the “abunu” tenancy principle. Evidence however abounds that the plaintiff has been denied a share of the teak. I will therefore award compensation/damages of GH¢10,000 to the plaintiff instead of GH¢45,000.00 which could not be proven costs of GH¢1,000.00 awarded against the defendants. Or the teak should be shared. SGD. H/W C. KWASI ASOMAH JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA