Berko V Marfo & 6 Ors (GJ1/73/22) [2024] GHAHC 432 (24 October 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, HELD IN THE ASHANTI REGION, KUMASI ON THURSDAY THE 24TH OF OCTOBER, 2O24 BEFOREHER LADYSHIP HANNAH TAYLOR(MRS) J. SUIT NO: GJ1/73/22 OPANINKWAME BERKO …PLAINTIFF SUINGFOR HIMSELFANDINHIS CAPACITYAS THEHEADOF FAMILY OF THE AKOSUASAAMAN FAMILYOF MANSOATWEDIE, KUMASI H/NO. 24MANSO ATWEDIE VRS. 1. KWAMEMARFO …DEFENDANTS 2. ABENANKRUMAH 3. YAWGEORGE 4. KWASI ANTWI 5. KOFI MIAH 6. KWASI OSEI@ BURGER 1 7. YAWFOSU ALLOF MANSOATWEDIE PREMPEHSTREET–KUMASI __________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Plaintiff per his amended writ of summons filed on 11th January, 2022 sues for himself and on behalf of his Akosua Saaman Aduana family for the following reliefs against the defendants, the children ofOpanin KofiAntwi deceased: - a) A declaration that all that cocoa farm situate and being at Nnipankyemia on Keniago Stool land bounded by the farms of Papa Danquah (deceased), Kofi Fofie (deceased) Kwabena Yenow (deceased) Madam Manu, wife of the late Kofi Antwi, Ama Komand his children is the propertyofhis family. b) Recoveryofpossession. c) Damagesfor trespass. d) Accounts ofproceedsofthe cocoa farm. e) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their relatives, privies and their agents, servantsfromhaving any dealings withthesaid cocoa farm. 2 PLAINTIFF’S CASE The plaintiff states that his deceased uncles Opanin Kofi Antwi and Kwabena Yenow acquired aparcelofland at Nipankyemia and latershared the land betweenthem. On his portion of the land, bounded by the farms of Papa Danquah (deceased), Kofi Fofie (deceased) Kwabena Yenow (deceased), Kwame Ayirebi (deceased) and Madam Manu, Opanin Kofi Antwi cultivated cocoa. Opanin Kofi Antwi, in his life time gifted portions of his cocoa farm to the plaintiff’s family, his wife and children. However, the proceeds of the farm gifted to the family was only to be enjoyed by the family after his death. Flowers were planted to mark the boundaries of the three cocoa farms. The family and thechildren paid ‘aseda’ of2bottlesofschnapps each toOpanin KofiAntwi. In respect of the family’s portion of the farm, Opanin Kofi Antwi appointed his nephew Kwabena Oseiasthe caretaker andhe accounted to himtill his demise. Upon the death of the Opanin Kofi Antwi, Kwabena Osei succeeded him and the property continued to remain in the possession of the family, whereby, the proceeds of the cocoa farm was used in managing the farms of the family. When Kwabena Osei died, he was succeeded by Kwaku Asare Bediako. The defendants, the children of Kwabena Osei however, now lay a claim to the cocoa farm contending that Opanin Kofi 3 Antwi gifted the cocoa farm to their father alone and have forcibly taken over the cocoa farmwithout accounting tothe family. The defendants’ father had his own cocoa farms at Anwiafutu, Safo Nkwanta and Nnipankyemia which are different fromthe disputed cocoafarm gifted tothe family, an uncompleted house at Sepaase and another house at Nnipankyemia. These immediate propertiesacquired by Kwabena Oseihave beengivento his wives andchildren. With the disputed cocoa farm belonging to the family, the present action was instituted against thedefendants. DEFENDANTS’ CASE The defendants contend that Opanin Kofi Antwi and Kwabena Yenow separately acquired their distinct lands aNnipankyemia. Opanin Kofi Antwi, however, made agift of portions of his land to the wife, children and their father, Kwabena Osei. Therefore, the gift was made to their father in his personal capacity and not to the plaintiff’s family asplaintiff would want thecourt tobelieve. Denying all claims relating to the family’s interest in the disputed land, the defendants stated that all family properties which were in their father’s control have been given to 4 the family. Of the disputed property, the defendants averred that together with their motherand othersiblingstheyconstitute the beneficialowners. The claims of the plaintiff, they further contend are misconceived and ought to be dismissed. REPLYANDISSUES FORTRIAL The plaintiffs joined issues with the defendants on their statement of claim and added that before the demise of the defendants’ father, he pledged the cocoa farm at Nnipankyemia to one Yaw Mensah and his wife for GH¢6,000.00 and the family after his deathhad topay theamount toredeemthe cocoa farm. The issues set fordeterminationafterthe close ofpleadings areasfollows: - 1. Whether or not the late Opanin KofiAntwi gifted the portion of his cocoa farm at Nnipankyemia tohis family and anotherportion to hiswife and children. 2. Whether or not the late Opanin Kofi Antwi appointed his nephew Kwabena Osei asthe caretakerofcocoa farmsgifted to his family. 3. Whether or not flowers were planted between the family portion of the cocoa farmand that ofthechildren. 4. Whetherornot thelate Kwabena Oseisucceeded his lateuncle KofiAntwi. 5 5. Whether or not the family properties in the defendants’ father’s control have beengivento theplaintiff’sfamily. 6. Anyotherissues raised by thepleadings. BURDENOF PROOF The law of evidence, requires that the plaintiff proves the family’s title to land with evidence that meet the standard of proof required in civil suits which is, proof on the preponderance of probabilities. Sections 11 (4), 12 and 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD323provide that;- 11 (4) In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence which on the totality of the evidence, leads a reasonable mind to conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable thanits non-existence. 12. Proofby apreponderance ofprobabilities. (1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by preponderance ofthe probabilities. (2) ”Preponderance of the probabilities” means the degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court by which the existence of a fact is more probable thanits non-existence” 6 14. Except as otherwise provided by law, unless and until it is shifted a party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or non-existence of which is essential totheclaim ordefence he isasserting”. On section 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323, the Supreme Court speaking throughAnsah JSC in the case ofTAKORADI FLOUR MILLS V.SAMIR FARIS [2005- 2006]SCGLR 882at900instructively,held thatatrialcourt in acivilsuit should; - “In assessing the balance of probabilities, all the evidence, be it that of the plaintiff or defendant must be considered and the party in whose favour the balance tilts is the person whose case is more probable of the rival versions and deserving of a favourable verdict..” On sections 11(1) and 14 of the Evidence Act 1975 NRCD 323, Owusu JSC in the case of LINDA AKOTO V. BRIGHT KWASI MANU [2022] 175 GMJ 457 explained the position of the law with reference to the case of RE ASHALLEY BOTWE LANDS [2003 – 2004] SCGLR 420 at 425 where Brobbey JSC held “The effect of section 11(1) and 14 and similar sectionsinthe Evidence Decree, 1975may be described asfollows: - “A litigant who is a defendant in a civil case does not need to prove anything; the plaintiff who took the defendant to court has to prove what he claims he is entitled to from the defendant. At the same time, if the court has to make a determination of fact, 7 or of an issue, and the determination depends on the evaluation of facts and evidence, the defendant must realise that the determination cannot be made on nothing. If the defendant desiresthe determination tobe made in his favour,thenhe hasaduty to help his own cause by adducing before the court such facts or evidence that will induce the determination to be made in his favour. The logical sequel to this is that if he leads no such evidence the court will be left with no choice but evaluate the entire case on the basis ofthe evidence before the court, which may turnout tobe the only evidence of the plaintiff. If the court chooses to believe the only evidence on record, the plaintiff may win and the defendant may lose such loss, may be brought about by the default on the part of the defendant. In the light of the statutory provisions, literally relying on the common law principle that the defendant does not need to prove any defence and therefore does not need to lead any evidence may not always serve the best interest of the litigant even ifhe is adefendant.” The plaintiff is thus, required to lead credible, cogent and admissible evidence establishing the facts asserted by him in characterizing, the farm in dispute as the propertyofhis Akosua Saamanfamily ofManso Atwedie by way ofgift. 8 In BARKO V. MUSTAPHA [1964] GLR 78, the Supreme Court per the holding 1 among other things emphasized the onus on the claimant of a gift to lead evidence demonstrating the existence ofagift. DETERMINATION OFISSUES WHETHER OR NOT THE LATE OPANIN KOFI ANTWI GIFTED A PORTION OF HIS COCOA FARM AT NIPANKYEMIA TO HIS FAMILY AND ANOTHER PORTION TOHIS WIFEANDCHILDREN. From the pleaded case of the parties and the evidence, it is not in contention that OpaninKofiAntwiowned the disputed land. There is also an admission that Opanin Kofi Antwi gifted portions of his land to the wife and children and the disputed land, was also gifted. Plaintiff contends that apart from the gift to the wife and children, the other portion of the land was gifted to his family, thus, making it family property. In the pleaded case of the plaintiff per the paragraph 5 of the amended statement of claim he pleaded asfollows: - 5.Inhis life time the late Opanin KofiAntwigave portions ofhis said cocoa farms tothe plaintiff’s family and his wife and children but were told to enjoy the proceeds after his demise.” 9 Onthe issue ofgift, the plaintiff’sattorney,Yaw Fosutestified that he was present when this gift was made at a meeting held in 1994 with Akosua Saaman (daughter of Kofi Antwi), Kwadwo Anane (the then head of family) Kofi Akowuah, Yaw Akowuah and Yaw Kwakye, where Opanin Kofi Antwi indicated that the family could take the propertyafterhis death. On gifts, the learned author, Dennis Dominic Adjei in his invaluable book “Land Law, Practice and Conveyancing in Ghana” 2nd Edition at page 54 noted that, customarily, a gift of land is a voluntary donation of a property owned by the donor who is not with disability to the donee in the presence of witnesses who may include family members of the donor, and the donee must accept the gift by providing thanksgiving (aseda) which could be a tokenorsubstantial, in the presence of witnesses, and the thanksgiving must be accepted by the donor after which the interest in the property the donor intends to pass tothedonee would vestinthe donee. The ingredients ofacustomarygift were outlined as, i) publicity ii) acceptance iii) placing the donee in possession inthe Barkocase supra. 10 In YOGUO V. AGYEKUM [1966[ GLR 482, at 493 – 494, the Supreme Court again statedonavalid customarygift held: - “A valid gift under customary law, is an unequivocal transfer of ownership by the donor to the donee, made with widest publicity which the circumstances of the case may permit. For the purposes of the required publicity, the gift is made in the presence of independent witnesses, some of whom should be members of the family of the donor who would have succeeded to the property if the donor had died intestate and also, in the presence of members offamily ofthe donee who also would succeed tothe property upondeathofthe doneeonintestacy. The gift is acknowledged by the donee by the presentation of drinks or other articles to the donor …… Another form of publicity is exclusive possession and the exercise of overtactsofownership bythe donee afterthe ceremony.” InASARE V. KUMOJI [2000]SCGLR 298at 302the Supreme Courtacknowledged that there are two ways of making avalid gift, either by a conveyance where a deed of gift is granted to evidence the transaction or orally where it is governed by customary law. With respect to customary law gifts inter vivos, our courts have stressed that the 11 acceptance of gift especially land “must be made by the presentation to the donor of some tokenofacknowledgement and gratitude in the presence ofwitnesses. What constitute a valid gift, at page 54 of his book “Land, Law Practice and Conveyancing in Ghana”, 2nd edition supra, as well, the learned author made reference toSarbah’sbook ‘FantiCustomaryLaw’where hestated, “… gifts consist in the relinquishment of one’s own rights and the creation of the right of another, in lands, goods, or chattels, which creation is only completed by the acceptance ofthe offer ofthe gift by that other. To constitute a valid gift, an intention of giving or passing the property in the thing giventothe donee by thedonor, who hasthe powerso todo isnecessary. The giving and acceptance must be proved and evidenced by such delivery or conveyanceas the natureofthe gift admits”. In this case, the plaintiff’s case suggests that though ‘aseda’ was given, the donor, OpaninKofiAntwipostponed putting the family inpossession. Intheevidence ofthe PW1KofiAkowuah, under crossexamination he answered: - Q. After Opanin Kofi Antwi gifted his farm, no member of the plaintiff’s family has everbeenin possession. I amputting thattoyou. 12 A. When Opanin Kofi Antwi was alive he indicated after giving it to the family that thefamily should take possession afterhis death. According to the plaintiff’s attorney, Yaw Fosu, Opanin Kofi Antwi died about 24 years ago which suggests that for all this while the family was never put in possession of the gifted property. Meanwhile in the plaintiff’s amended statementofclaim per theparagraphs 9and 10he pleaded asfollows: - “9. The late Opanin Kofi Antwi appointed his nephew Kwabena Osei as the caretakerofthe family portion but accounted tohim until his demise”. “10. Following the demise of Opanin Kofi Antwi, his nephew Kwabena Osei succeeded himand continued toremain in possession ofthe family’scocoa farm.” By these averments, after the alleged gift has been made, it is Kwabena Osei who was put in charge of the farm. However, under cross examination of the plaintiff’s attorney he testified asfollows: Q. You agree with me that apart from Osei Kwabena, no other member of the plaintiff’s family has beeninpossessionofthe farms? A. No. Q. You also agree with me that Kwabena Osei took possession of the subject land evenduring the life time ofOpanin KofiAntwi. 13 A. No. Q. I am suggesting to you that Osei Kwabena has been in possession of the subject landevenwhenOpaninKofiAntwiwas alive? A. Itisnot correct. Q. And that has been the case of the plaintiff himself in his amended statement of claim. A. KofiAntwidied beforeOseiKwabena was made toinherit him. Q. It was not the plaintiff’s family that put Osei Kwabena in possession of the farms afterthe deathofOpanin KofiAntwi asyouwant this courttobelieve? A. It is not correct. The plaintiff’s family put Osei Kwabena in possession of the farmafterthe deathofOpanin KofiAntwi. Q. It was Opanin Kofi Antwi himself who put Osei Kwabena in possession of the said land aftergifting same tohim? A. It is not correct. It was after Osei Kwabena inherited Opanin Kofi Antwi that he had possessionofthe farm. Q. In fact, it was Osei Kwabena and his children who cultivated the land into a cocoafarmhaving been gifted same by OpaninKofiAntwi? A. Kofi Antwi broke the virgin forest into cocoa farm and after the death of Kofi Antwi, Osei Kwabena was made to succeed him and he took possession of the farm. 14 Q. During the life time ofOpanin Kofi Antwi, Osei Kwabena cultivated and enjoyed thecocoa farmswithout any interference by the plaintiff’s family? A. Itisnot correct. Q. That is because Opanin Kofi Antwi never gifted the subject land to the plaintiff’s family. A. It is not correct. After the death of Kofi Antwi Osei Kwabena succeeded him and he was put in possessionofthefarm. The farmis afamily property. Q. You agree with me that the wife and children of Opanin Kofi Antwi enjoyed their portion of farm lands gifted to them by Opanin Kofi Antwi during his life time? A. That is so. The land was divided into two and they are on their side of the land. Noone has interfered withtheir interest. Q. The plaintiff’s family has never been in possession of the farm or enjoyed the proceeds thereof either during the life of Opanin Kofi Antwi or even after his death. A. That is so. During his life time but after his death, when Kwabena Osei succeeded him, he took possession and the proceeds were used to take care of thefamily without any interference”. Inadditionto theforegoing, PW1 under crossexamination hadtestified: - 15 Q. After Opanin Kofi Antwi gifted portions of his farm, no member of the plaintiff family has everbeen inpossession. I amputting thatto you. A. When Opanin Kofi Antwi was alive he indicated after giving it to the family that thefamily should take possession afterhis death. Q. Contrary to your assertion in paragraph 12 of your witness statement, Kwabena Osei never managed the affairs of the plaintiff’s family because he was not a family head. A. He was not the head of family but when Opanin Kofi Antwi died, the family had a meeting and made Kwabena Osei to be the customary successor and take care ofthe properties he gifted tothe family. Q. You will agree with me that it was not the family but Opanin Kofi Antwi who put Kwabena Oseiinpossession ofthe farm. A. Itisnot correct. The denial by the plaintiff of Kwabena Osei being in possession of the disputed land after the gift particularly where they have pleaded that he was put in charge and he continued to be in possession of the farm after the death of Opanin Yaw Antwi, without doubt, constitute inconsistency with plaintiff’s pleadings. A party cannot deny the existence ofstatedfacts whichhe had already asserted. 16 Forthe purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice of the case which has to be met so that the opposing party may direct his evidence to the issue disclosed by them. See the case ofDAM V.ADDO &BROTHERS [1962]2GLR200at 205. The defendants have been consistent that after the grant of gift, Kwabena Osei has been in possession of the disputed property. What is revealing from the plaintiff’s case is that Opanin Kofi Antwi after the alleged gift to the family never relinquished his right in the propertyand continued toenjoysame. Ontheclaim that OpaninKofiAntwihad stated the gift tobe operational afterhis death, the law is well settled on charges against a deceased person. The approach of the courts has been that the court should be careful as to the weight it attaches to evidence of that nature. Thus, in the case of OPANIN KWAKU DUAH & ANO. V. PETER KOFI OKYERE & 2 ORS. [2023] 182 GMJ at 154 at 188, the Supreme Court speaking through Tanko JSC noted;- “As this court observed in the case of MONDIAL VENEER (GH) LTD. V. AMUAH GYEBU XV [2011] 1 SCGLR 466; “we have firmly established the principle that real danger lies in accepting without questioning or close scrutiny, claims against a dead person. The caution that such claims must be weighed carefully is based on plain good sense and has consistently been applied on a number of cases including FOSUA V. ADUPOKU V. DUFIE (DECEASED)ADU POKU MENSAH[2009]SCGLR 310. 17 In RE: KRAH (DECEASED) YANKYERAAH AND ORS. V. OSEI TUTU & ANOR. [1989–1990]1GLR 638,BISI V. TABIRI[1987 –1988] 1GLR360. The principle as enunciated by Brett MR, in the case of GARNETT, RE; GANDY V. MACAULAY [1886] 31 CHD 1 AT 9 CA is that “The law is that when an attempt is made to charge a dead person in a matter, which if he life were alive, he might have answered the charge, the evidence ought to be looked at with great care; the evidence ought to be thoroughly sifted, and the mind of any judge who hears it ought to be, first ofall in astate ofsuspicion.” In my view, the claim of postponement of the family’s control over the property is to explain why the family has not been in possession of the property for over 24 years, after the alleged gift and the denial of Kwabena Osei’s possession as pleaded by the plaintiff is an effort to sway the court to reason that it was only after Opanin Kofi Antwi’s death that by virtue of his appointment as his customary successor, he took chargeofthe disputed farm. The defendants per the 2nd defendant who testified have been emphatic on a gift made to their father by the uncle Kofi Antwi. As a result, he cultivated the farm with the wife and children. There has been consistency with the accounts of the defendants and their pleadings. 18 Further, I find that Kwabena Osei had been in possession of the disputed farm land during the life time of Opanin Kofi Antwi making the claim of the gift to him more probable thanthe account givenby the plaintiff. The claim of the land held by Kwabena Osei as family property is also displaced by the claim of Kwabena Antwi pledging the property. Kwabena Antwi could not have pledged the farm for his own personal benefit where the property was family property, the family would have objected to this step taken and Kwabena Osei could have done so onlywiththe consent ofthe family. Thereis no such evidence. I have observed that plaintiff in his amended statement of claim did not plead the claim of Kwabena Osei pledging the cocoa farm, the subject matter of this case. It was in the reply per the paragraphs 4 and 5 that plaintiff pleaded that defendants’ father pledged the cocoa farm to Yaw Mensah and the wife for the sum of ¢6,000.00 and the family paying off to redeem the farm in reply to the defendants’ statement of defence asserting agifttoKwabena Osei. This step invariably denied the defendant opportunity to answer the averment made. During trial, plaintiff’s counsel turned round to object to the inclusion of paragraph 21 of the 2nd defendant’s witness statement asserting that the children paid of the loan on 19 grounds of un-pleaded fact which defendants’ lawyer agreed. Order 11 rule 10 of the HighCourtCivilProcedure, 2004CI 47in particular provides asfollows: - 1. A party shall not in any pleading make any allegation of fact or raise any new ground orclaim, inconsistent withapreviouspleading made by theparty. 2. Sub rule (1) shall not be taken as limiting the right of a party to amend or apply for leave to amend previous pleading of the party in order to plead allegations or claims inthe alternative. In this case, when the plaintiff sought for an amendment, he amended the statement of claim and did not mention the issue of the family redeeming a pledge made by Kwabena Osei. The issue of the pledge and redemption by the family was still found in thereply which the defendant had no opportunityto respond. In MR. SENTI MICHAEL V. REV. FATHER MON KWAME AND ANOTHER [2020] 170 GMJ 126, the Supreme Court held; “the main purpose of a reply in pleadings is to raise an answer tothe defence matters which must be pleaded by way ofconfessionand avoidance or make any admissions which the plaintiff may consider proper to make. Relevant here is the English case of HALL V. EVE [1976] 4 Ch. D. 341 at 346 where James LJ was of the opinion that “[T]he reply is the proper place for meeting the defence by confessionand avoidance”. 20 In the Senti Michael case supra, the paragraph in the reply which could not be part of a proper reply was struck out. Per the instruction in the Senti case, the plaintiff’s paragraphs 4 and 5 of the reply would be struck out and his claim of a gift to the family wouldbe consideredas the basis ofhisclaim. A claim whichthe courtrejects. I find that Opanin Antwi gifted a portion ofhis cocoa farm at Nnipankyemia to the wife, childrenand anotherportion toKwabena Oseiandnot theplaintiff’sfamily. On whether Opanin Kofi Antwi appointed his nephew Kwabena Osei as the caretaker of the cocoa farm gifted to the family, I will answer in the negative. The fact is, plaintiff who asserted that Kwabena Osei was appointed a caretaker per his pleaded case and even in attorney’s witness statement, denied same under cross examination. The defendants have denied the caretaker role ascribed to Kwabena Osei right from the onset of pleadings and the plaintiff who asserted same and ought to build evidential pointstoestablish same abandoned their stand. On the issue of boundaries between the gifted land to the wife and children and the land gifted in contention, there is no denial that the wife and children’s portion are distinct. In the testimony of DW1 Kofi Nsiah, he stated that he was invited by Kwabena Osei and together with Mr. Agyakum (deceased), Opanin Kwame Duah also deceased present, the land gifted to Kwabena Osei was shown by Opanin Kofi Antwi, flowers 21 were planted to serve as boundary between the portion that he has gifted to him and theportion given tohis wife and children. Undercrossexamination ofDW1, answered asfollows: - Q. I am suggesting to you that it is never correct that you in the company of these two persons went to demarcate the land of Kofi Antwi as a result of any gift made toOseiKwabena. A. It is correct we went to demarcate the land of Kofi Antwi. We went in the company of Kofi Antwi and Osei Kwabena as Kofi Antwi was demarcating the landthe restofus followed and planted flowersalong thedemarcated boundary. In so far as there is no issue of uncertainty about the land given to the wife and children and other land gifted to defendants’ father as found, certainly, the boundary between themis distinct, flowersplanted isequally probable. On whether or not the late Kwabena Osei succeeded his late uncle Kofi Antwi and whether or not the family properties in defendant’s control have been given to the plaintiff’s family, will be considered together. The claim that Kwabena Osei succeeded Opanin Kofi Antwi was made by the plaintiff and same was denied by the defendants in paragraph 5 of their statement of defence. 22 However, in paragraph 6 of the statement of defence, they pleaded that all family propertieswhich werein their father’scontrolhavebeen giventothe family. The question is how would family properties get into the control of the defendants’ father when the evidence before the court is that he was not the head of family? But when 2nd defendant attempted to testify that Kwabena Osei succeeded the uncle Opanin Antwi, per paragraph 19 of his witness statement and on property that came to him, same was objected to as un-pleaded fact and this objection was not contested and the paragraphstruckout. Itis like throwing away the baby withthe bathwater. The plaintiff has testified that defendants’ father succeeded Opanin Kofi Antwi and this was not challenged under cross examination. I make a finding that Kwabena Osei succeeded OpaninKofiAntwi. Apart from the disputed property, there was no other property pointed out by the plaintiff that came to Kwabena Osei’s custody upon succeeding Opanin Kofi Antwi which ought to be handed over to the family upon his death. The contested property has been found not to be family property and therefore there is nothing to be handed overtothe plaintiff’sfamily. 23 CONCLUSION From the conclusions arrived by the court, the court finds that the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold ofproof required in civil cases onthe preponderance of probabilities. Reliefssought arehereby refused as same aredismissed for lacking merit. CostofGh¢10,000.00awarded against theplaintiff. [SGD] JUSTICEHANNAH TAYLOR(MRS) JUSTICEOF THE HIGH COURT LAWYERS KWAKUYEBOAHAPPIAHFORTHE PLAINTIFF ANGELA AMAGYAA APPIAH FOR KWADWO DEI-KWARTENG FOR THE DEFENDANTS 24