Yeboah v Donkor (A1/20/2020) [2025] GHADC 220 (12 June 2025)

SITTINGINTHE DISTRICT COURT ATWENCHI IN THEBONO REGION ON THURSDAYTHE 12TH DAY OF JUNE,2025,BEFORE HIS WORHSIP ISSAH ABDUL-WAHAB (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) SUITNO. A1/20/2020 BETWEEN: AKOSUA YEBOAH(SUING FORAND ON) ) BEHALFOF HERSIBLINGS) OF DROBOSO ) - - - PLAINTIFF VRS: KWADWODONKOR OF DROBOSO-WENCHI - - - DEFENDANT J U DGEME NT The plaintiff filed this writ on the 28th day of April,2020 seeking the following reliefs fromthe courtand against the defendant herein; (a) A declaration of title to and recovery of possession of all that parcel of piece of land lying at Droboso-Wenchi and bounded by the properties of Maame Afia Sekyere, MaamePomaa and Kwaa Nsoa respectively. (b) Damagesfor trespass; (c) Special damagesofGH₵1,040.00against the defendant and; 1 (d)An order for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant, his agents, assigns, workmen etc and anybody who claims through him from having anything to do withthe disputed land. From the plaintiff’s particulars of claim and the pleadings filed by the parties, the following legalissues were set downfortrial; (1) Whetherornot thedisputed land is thepropertyofthe plaintiff herein; (2) Whetherornot theplaintiff has any valid title tothe said land; (3) Whetherornot thedefendant trespassed ontotheland in dispute; (4) Whether or not the plaintiff is entitle to the general and special damages claimed; and (5) Whether or not an order will lie to injunct the defendant herein fromentering the landindispute. In her evidence in-chief the plaintiff said she is Akosua Yeboah and that she lives at Droboso in Wenchi. That she knows the defendant as well as the land in dispute. She said the disputed land is situate at Droboso and bounded by the properties of Maame Afia Serekye, Maame Pomaa and Kwaa Nsoa respectively. That she has the concern and concurrence of her siblings Daniel Bosea, Madam Stella and Yaa Bema to bring the instant action against the defendant herein. Plaintiff said many years ago her father Op. Kwasi Yaaso who is a native of Droboso reduced a portion of the land part of which is indispute into the cultivationoffood crops. 2 That he later cultivated tobacco on the land and demarcated the boundaries to his land with teak trees and over time the teak trees dispersed as a result the land is inter- planted with teak trees which are presently on the land. Plaintiff said the father became old and frail and so he gifted the land part of which is in dispute to his children in the presence of their uncle called Kingsley Manu and “Aseda” in the form of drinks and a tokenofmoneywas givenas customdemand. That after the land was gifted to them they went into immediate possession by giving a portion of the disputed land to one Kwesi Bene to cultivate cashew for about 4 years. Plaintiff said she caused the land to be cleared and when she visited same she met the defendant who threatened her and chased her out of the land with a chainsaw. That the matterwas reported tothe police and she advised tocontinue withthe cultivationofthe land. Plaintiff said she spent money in cutting the teakon the land and hired a tractorto plough same to plant. That the defendant then sent labourers onto the land to plant maize. Plaintiff said all the money she spent in preparing the land was one thousand and forth cedis (GH₵1,040.00). That the defendant is using force to take the land from her. Plaintiff thereforeprayedthe court togranther thereliefs she is seeking. Plaintiff’s sole witness (P.W.1) was one Kingsley Manu who said he is a farmer and lives at Droboso near Wenchi. That he knows the parties herein. P.W.1 said when he was a young boy, he used to follow Opanin Kwasi Yaaso who is his uncle to farm on 3 the land part of which is in dispute now. That Opanin Yaaso cultivated food crops on the land until a company called GTC which later became PTC started buying tobacco in commercial quantities. That Opanin Yarso then started to cultivate Tobacco on the land. That the late Ama Pomaa whose land shares boundary with the disputed land also cultivated the Tobacco on her land. P.W.1 said being a nephew of Opanin Kwasi Yaaso, he helped him to cultivate the tobacco. That it was Opanin Kwasi Yaaso who planted teaktress onthe boundariesofthe land with Ama Pomaa. That the teak trees are still on the land. That both Op. Kwasi Yarso and Maame Ama Pomaa farmed on their respective lands and respected their boundaries even after both of them became weak and could no long farm. P.W.1 said Opanin Kwasi Yaaso gifted his land in dispute now to his children in his presence and drinks as well as a token of money was presented to him. That the children after the gift have been in possession by farming onthe land. That it was recently that the defendant has been using force to take overthe land. That the defendant hasno valid title tothe land. The evidence of the defendant herein consisted of his testimony and that of his two (2) witnesses. The defendant in his evidence in chief told the court he is Kwadwo Donkor and that he is a farmer and lives at Droboso. That he knows the plaintiff who is also a farmer and lives at Droboso to. That he (Defendant) knows the disputed land which measures not more than two (2) acres. That the disputed land forms part of a large parcel of land 4 acquired by his (defendant) grandmother by name Nana Ama Pomaa several years ago when she first came to settle at Droboso near Wenchi. That the grandmother was gifted the land by the then Queen mother of Droboso, Nana Nyarko. That the grandmother farmed on the land for many years until she became old. That the grandmother had nine (9) children. Soshe shared the land to her male children, namely; Kwabena Yeboah, Akwasi Awuah, and Koo Krufie and then reserved a portion for herself and daughters. That the grandmother later gifted the portion for her son Kwabena Yeboah to her daughter Rose Amankwa (defendant’s aunt) because she had another parcel at Tadieso, whichshe decided togive Kwabena Yeboah. Defendant said, Rose Amankwah was in possession of her portion without any let or hindrance for several years. That Rose Amankwa later got into a relationship with OpaninYaaso(plaintiff’sfather)outofwhich theyhadason. That by reason of the relationship Opanin Yaaso helped Rose Amankwah in cultivating her potion of the land. That the relationship later broke down and Rose Amankwah relocated to Bouyem in the Techiman North District. That after his (defendant) aunt left for Bouyem, Opanin Yaaso pleaded with his (defendant) grandmother to allow him to continue farming ontheaunties land which hisgrandmother accepted. Defendant said after the death of his grandmother the family still allowed Opanin Yaasor to farm on the land for his sustenance as he was once married to his (defendant) aunt and with whom he had achild. Defendant said it is this portion oftheir land that is 5 in dispute now. That the said portion shares boundary with the properties of Maame Akua Adai, Maame Ataa Akosua, Maame Afai Serekye, and Opanin Yaw Duodo. That Opanin Yaasor, cultivated the land until he became old and the land layed fallow for a long period of time. That at all material time Opanin Yaaso knew the land belongs to Rose Amankah and so was part of his (defendant) grandmother’s land. Defendant said when he became caretaker of the family land he started cultivating the family land including the portion in dispute now. Defendant said before he started cultivating the disputed portion he informed Opanin Yaaso through one Op. Kwasi Kru (former Droboso Kyeame). That he told him that the family was re-entering the land and taking back same. That Opanin Yaasor agreed and informed him (defendant) through Opanin Kwasi Kru that the disputed portion indeed was part of his (defendant) grandmother’s land. Defendant said he was then confronted by the plaintiff that their father Opanin Yaaso had gifted the disputed land to them (plaintiff and her siblings). Defendant said he reminded the plaintiff that the disputed land is part of his (defendant) grandmother’s land and that Opanin Yaaso could not have gifted it to his children. Defendant said the plaintiff’s father has had his land with clear boundaries with his (defendant) grandmother’sland. Defendant said he has cultivated cashew on the disputed land and which is 5 years old, and that it is not true that he threatened the plaintiff with any chainsaw. That when 6 plaintiff confronted him he reminded the plaintiff of his (defendant) family’s ownership of land but the plaintiff reported him to the police in Wenchi. That the police visited the farm and later advised the plaintiff not to trespass onto the land again. That the plaintiff theninstitutedthis action. Defendant said theplaintiff is not entitle tothe reliefs she is seeking. Defendant first witness (D.W.1) told the court she is Adwoa Donkorand she lives at Droboso. That the defendant is the nephew of her (D.W.1) late husband called Opanin Kwabena Yeboah. D.W.1 said she knows the land in dispute. That is at a place called “Mpaani”. That the land belongs to her (D.W.1) late husband’s mother called Maame Pomaa. That she, (D.W.1) her mother in-law and her (D.W.1) husband cultivated the land. That the cultivated tobacco on it. That her (D.W.1) mother in-law had a daughter called Rose Amankwah who now lives at Bouyem in the Techiman North District. That Maame Pomaa gave a portion of the land they were farming on to Rose Amankwah to also farm and feed herself. That Rose Amankwah at the time had a relationship with one Opanin Kwasi Yaaso and they had a son. That the said Kwasi Yaasor then helped Rose Amankwah to cultivate the land. That their relationship later broke down and Rose Amankwah relocated to Bouyem. That her portion of the land was then left fallow. That at the time Op. Kwasi Yaaso then pleaded with Maame Pomaa to grant him permission to farm on the land that he initially farmed with Rose Amankwah, his formerwife. That Maame Pomaaallowed the said Kwasi Yaasortofarmonthe land. 7 The second and final witness for the defendant was one Rose Nyamekye (D.W.2). That she lives at Droboso. D.W.2 said she knows the land in dispute and same is located at a place called “Mpaani”. That the land belongs to her (D.W.2) late mother called Maame Pomaa and on which land she and her other siblings and their mother in-law used to farm. That the late mother in-law had a daughter called Rose Amankwah who now livesatBouyeminthe Techiman NorthDistrict. That Rose Amankwah during the lifetime of her mother decided to relocate to Droboso and their mother gave her the disputed land is part of her land to farm. That Rose Amankwah at the time then dated one Op. Kwasi Yaaso who was also into Tobacco farming and nursing of tobacco seedings. That their relationship later broke down and Rose Amankwah relocated to Bouyem and left the land Maame Pomaa gave to her to farm. That Kwasi Yaaso then pleaded with Maame Pomaa to farm on the land and she agreed. That Op. Kwasi Yaaso then planted tobacco on the land. That when they saw that Opanin Kwasi Yaaso had planted some teak tress on the land, they informed their mother Maame Pomaa but she said they should allow Kwasi Yaaso as he is her son in- law. That later again saw the other children of Opanin Yaaso cultivating the land. That the plaintiff herein is one of such step children of Rose Amankwah who has sued the defendant herein in this court. D.W.2 said thatis what she knows. Having therefore evaluated all the evidence this court has observed that the plaintiff contended that many yearsago her father Opanin Kwasi Yaaso cultivated food cropson 8 the disputed land which is situate at Droboso and bounded by the properties of Maame Afia Serekye, Maame Pomaa and Kwaa Nsoa respectively. That her father who is a native of Droboso then later cultivated tobacco on the land and demarcated the boundaries of the land and also inter-planted same with teak trees. The plaintiff stated thattheir father laterbecame old and gifted theland tohischildren. This assertion by the plaintiff even though was corroborated by the sole witness of the plaintiff, who is one Kingsley Manu, the corroboration is only to the extent that the plaintiff’s father, Opanin Kwasi Yaaso indeed cultivated food crops on the land and later tobacco. The evidence of the plaintiff however has not established if the said Opanin Kwasi Yaaso was the once who originally cultivated the disputed land. An effective prove of the root of title of the said Opanin Kwasi Yaaso was crucial especially that the defendant’s herein have traversed the plaintiff’s claim of ownership of the disputed land. The defendant’s have disputed the plaintiff’s claim that the land belongs their father Opanin Kwasi Yaaso, and argued that the disputed land forms part of their mother Maame Pomaa’s farmland and which she farmed on until she gave portions to her children, including her daughter by name Rose Amankwah. It is the case of the defendant’s also that the said Rose Amankwah took possession of the disputed land which is a part of her mother Maame Pomaa’s land. Then Rose Amankwah later got into a love relationship with the said Opanin Kwasi Yaaso, the plaintiff’s father, and 9 that was how Opanin Yaaso got onto the disputed land. That Opanin Yaaso, assisted Rose Amankwah, his finance to cultivate the land, and the two love birds did so until their relationship crashed and Rose Amankwah relocated from Droboso to Bouyem in theTechiman NorthDistrict. So from the evidence it is very obvious that contrary to the claim by the plaintiff that disputed land belongs to their father, Opanin Kwasi Yaaso, it was rather Rose Amankwah who brought Opanin Yaaso onto the land, and this was after Maame Pomaa, gave the said portion of her land to Rose Amankwah who is her daughter. This was the evidence of the defendant herein and which was or has been corroborated in material detail by his (defendant) witnesses, ie Adwoa Donkor (D.W.1) who said the disputed land was first given to her (D.W.1) late husband by name Opanin Kwabena Yeboah and who was the son of Maame Pomaa. That Maame Pomaa shared her land among her children and the disputed land which forms part of her land was given to her husband Opanin Kwabena Yeboah to farm at a time Rose Amankwah who is also a daughter of Maame Pomaa was in Bouyem. That it was when Rose Amankwah relocated to Beposo that Maame Pomaa took the land in dispute from Kwabena Yeboah for Rose Amankwah. That it was after Rose Amankwah took possession of the disputed land that Opanin Kwasi Yaaso helped her to cultivate same because the two were in a loverelationship atthe time. 10 The defendant haven made these assertions also had same not dislodged by the plaintiff and indeed the plaintiff also never controverted the fact that Opanin Kwasi Yaaso whom the plaintiff seeks to trace her root of tile to, was in a relationship with Rose Amankwahand indeed had achild withher. It is again worthy of note that the defendant contended that the disputed land being a portion of Maame Pomaa’s land shares boundary or adjoins the other parcels of land that Maame Pomaa owned at the location. This I must say has been corroborated in a way by the plaintiff as she mentioned the same Maame Pomaa as one of the boundary owners to the disputed land she claims was cultivated by her father Opanin Kwasi Yaaso. However, without the plaintiff showing how her father Opanin Yaaso came into possession of the land, she only stated that the father cultivated food crops on same, any years ago and later did tobacco farming on same until he became old and weak and therefore gifted same to his children. And it must be noted that the testimony of the plaintiff’s sole wintess ie, Kingsley Manu also sought to make the point that Opanin Kwasi Yaaso the plaintiff’s father, gifted the disputed land to his children and that he was present and witnessed the purported gift made by Opanin Yaaso. Indeed the proof of the said gift can only stand on Opanin Kwasi Yaaso’s ownership of the said land. This is because, a person cannot give what he does not have or own. This speak to the “Nemodate” rule. So for the plaintiff’s herein to have successfully establish any gift of 11 the disputed land to them by their father there was the need for them to prove or establish their father’s title tothe land. Failing which any purportedgift will notbe valid. Again, this court wishes to reinforce the fact that plaintiff and her sole witness both mentioned Maame Pomaa, the grandmother of the defendant as a boundary owner to the disputed land they claim belong to Opanin Yaaso, the plaintiff’s father. However without property establishing the said Opanin Yaaso’s root of title tot eh said land, the defendant on the contrary has shown that the disputed land is a portion of Maame Pomaa’s land which he gave to the daughter Rose Amankwah to farm and Rose Amankwah having fallen in love with Opanin Yaaso, was the reason Opanin Yaaso got ontothe land tohelp Rose Amankwah reduce the land into the cultivation of foodcrops. that it was after the said love relationship between Rose Amankwah and Opanin Yaaso crashed that RoseAmankwah relocated toBouyemand left OpaninYaaso. So,if cannot be the case thatOpanin Yaasofirst cultivated the landindisputed. The defendant’s have again argued that even after Rose Amankwah left for Bouyem, it came atime thatOp. Yaaso contemplated cultivating tobacco onthe land, andso sought the permission of Maame Pomaa who granted him the permission as the land owner. This assertion by the defendant’s has not also been traversed effectively by the plaintiff herein. 12 Sofromthe evidence as adduced by the parties, Ifound the followingas facts; (1) That the disputed land part of a parcel of land cultivated by one Maame Pomaa, thedefendant grandmother. (2) That the said land was given to one Rose Amankwah the daughter of said MaamePomaa tofarm. (3) That Rose Amankwah was in a relationship with Opanin Kwasi Yaaso and with whom she had a child, and for which reason Opanin yaaso helped Rose to cultivatefood cropsonthesaid land. (4) That the relationship between Rose and Opanin Yaaso broke down and Rose movedtoBouyemand left Opanin Yaasoonthe land. (5) That OpaninYaaso did not originally acquire theland. In any civil trial, the law appears settled that the party that makes the claims assumes theonus ofproof. Section 11 (4) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (Act 323) imposes this burden when it provides that “ In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude thatthe existence ofthefact was moreprobable thanitsnon-existence”. This provision of Section 11 (4) of Act 323 has been expanded in the case of Faibi Vs State Hotels Corp {1968} GLR 176, when it was held that, “ In a civil trial the party who 13 in his or her pleadings raise issues that are essential to the success of their case assumes theonus ofproof”. This law on the burden of proof, as stated above therefore requires the party carrying the burden to produce sufficient evidence to make out a claim on the preponderance of probabilities which is the standard burden of proof in civil trials as provided in Section 12(1)ofAct 323. Section12(1) provides that; “ Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by the preponderance ofprobabilities”. This persuasive burden is further explained in Section 12 (2) of Act 323 as “ the degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the court by which the court is convinced that the existence ofthefact was more probable thankitsnon-existence”. It is therefore trite learning that in a civil trial the standard of proof is on the preponderance. This is to say that a party has to win on the merits or strength of their case. Further more in the case of Nana Amua Gyabu XV Vs Mondial/Veneer Co. Ltd {2022} 32 MLRG, 84 SC, the Supreme Court of Ghana held that in the situation where a party isclaiming ownershipofland, thepartymust prove; (a) His orherrootoftitle tothe disputed land; 14 (b) The incidence ofhis/her acquisition ofthe land; (c) Evidence ofactsofunchallenged possessionofthe disputed land. It is also the law as was set out in the case of Ogbamey Tetteh Vs Ogbancy Tetteh {1993- 94} GLR, 353, by the Supreme Court that “ in an action for the declaration of title, a plaintiff who failed to establish the root of his title must fail, because such a default was fataltohis case”. Having stated the law therefore and with the evidence led by the plaintiff in proof of her claim, it must be noted that the plaintiff’s evidence only appeared establish their father’s long possession of the disputed land as he first cultivated food crops on same and later tobacco. They have however not been able to establish the title of their father relativeto thedisputed land. This is against the backdrop of the evidence led by the defendant herein in traversing the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant has satisfactorily dislodged t he said claim by the plaintiff, when they showed per their evidence that it was Rose Amankwah who took the plaintiff’s father to the disputed land after same was given to her to farm. This was as a result of love relationship that existed by Rose Amankwah and Op. Kwasi Yaaso,the plaintiff’sfather. From the evidence and the law therefore, it is the conclusion of this court that the plaintiff hasnotproved her claim ofownership ofthe disputed andher case fails. 15 The reasonsfor theaboveconclusion include; (1) That the disputed land is part of the farmland of Maame Pomaa, the defendant’sgrandmother. (2) That the said Maame Pomaa later gave the disputed land to her daughter Rose Amankwahtofarmand she tookpossessionofsame. (3) That the said Rose Amankwah was in a love relationship with Opanin Kwasi Yaasothe plaintiff’sfather andwithwhom she had achild. (4) That Rose Amankwah took Opanin Kwasi Yaaso to the land to help her cultivatesame. (5) That Rose Amankwah laterrelocated to Bouyemleaving Opanin Yaaso onthe land, after their love relationship crashed. (6) That the disputed land was not originally acquired by Op. Yaaso as the evidence doesnotsupport theclaim ofthe plaintiff. (7) That the plaintiff failed to prove her title on the preponderance of probabilities asrequired by law. The plaintiff’s case is dismissed entirely. Cost of GH₵4,000.00 is awarded for the defendant and against the plaintiff. Counsel  Mr.Roland B. GyanEsq. 16 forplaintiff  Mr.W.O.Oduro withDavid Akubila fordefendant. ……………SGD………… H/WISSAH ABDUL-WAHAB (MAGISTRATE) 17