Nketiah v Apraku (A11/08/2023) [2025] GHADC 252 (22 May 2025)

INTHE DISTRICTMAGISTRATE COURTHELD ATNSOATRE INTHE BONO REGIONONTHURSDAY THE 22NDDAY OF MAY 2025, BEFORE HIS WORSHIPAUGUSTINEAKUSA-AMON ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITYAS MAGISTRATE SUITNO. A11/08/2023 PAUL KWABENA NKETIAH == PLAINTIFF VERSUS KWASI APRAKU == DEFENDANT JUDGMENT The plaintiff filed the instant suit claiming the following reliefs against the defendant; (a) An order for the production of agreement paper between the plaintiff and defendant in respect ofan “abunu”tenancy orin the alternative. (b) A refund of GH¢8,300.00 being “aseda” money paid to defendant and cost of weeding the land at GH¢2,300.00and GH¢6,000.00respectively. 1 The plaintiff‘s case is that the defendant sold a half plot of land to him at the cost of GH¢3,500.00. He however made part payment of GH¢1,800.00 to the defendant and subsequently paid GH¢300.00 and GH¢500.00 to a surveyor and an operator respectively. The surveyor was paid to fix pillars on the land whilst the operator was tasked to clear the land. Not long thereafter one Ahenkan who is senior brother to the defendants, claimed ownershipofthe landand the plaintiff was dispossessed ofsame. Following his dispossession of the plot of land, the defendant offered his farmland at a place called “Barmu” for the cultivation of cashew on “Abunu tenancy. Consequently the amount of GH¢2,300.00 he had spent on the earlier land was used as aseda. The plaintiff thereafter spent GH¢6,000.00 in clearing the newly acquired farmland for the cultivation of cashew. Again, after clearing the land one E.K. Boahen surfaced and claimed ownership of the land. As a result, the plaintiff is claiming a total amount of GH¢8,300.00fromthe defendant. CASE OFTHE DEFENDANT The defendant admitted that he gave12 acre farmland to the plaintiff to cultivate cashew on abunu tenancy per their oral agreement the plaintiff was supposed to pay GH¢150.00 per one acre of land as money for customary drinks (Nsatuo sika). The total sum would have been GH¢1,800.00. Instead of outliving cashew as agreed, the plaintiff 2 elected to cultivate maize instead. He plaintiff did not pay the GH¢1,800.00 being the cashed meant for customarydrinks. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was granted the farmland in 2019 but has since up to 2021 cultivated maize in clear violation of their agreement so he decided to reclaim the land. The defendant explained that at a point in time, the plaintiff had wanted to purchase a half plot of land belonging to his brother Ahenkan at the cost of GH¢4,500.00. That the plaintiff never paid a pesewa as consideration but had spent about GH¢700.00 fixing pillars and clearing the land. However, Ahekan decided not to sell the land again. This got the plaintiff angry and disappointed so he requested for his GH¢700.00. The defendant asked him to take that amount from the GH¢1,800.00 he was required to pay as customary drinks and balance him with an amount of GH¢1,100.00 but the plaintiff has since refused to oblige and rathertookthis actionagainst him. The defendant ever receiving an amount of GH¢1,800.00 as part payment of the half plot ofland. At the end of the trial the only issue that calls for determination is whether or not the defendant owes the plaintiff anamount ofGH¢8,300.00. 3 Before I deal with the only issue for determination I will briefly touch on the burden of proof. In civil cases, the general rule is that the one who in his pleadings or writ raises issues essential to the success of his case assumes the onus of proof. See BANK OF WEST AFRICA LTD. V. ACKUM (1963) GLR 176. The civil burden is on a balance of probabilities. See section 12 of the evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). Therefore, in the instant case, the burden lies on the plaintiff to adduce sufficient credible evidence to convince the court thatthe defendant oweshim GH¢8,300.00. What evidence did the plaintiff adduce? The plaintiff alleged that he had intended to buy a half plot of land from the defendant at the cost of GH¢3,500.00. That he made part payment of GH¢1,800.00 to the defendant and later paid an amount of GH¢500.00 through his wife to an operator who cared the plot of land. The plaintiff averred that after clearing the land, the real owner being one Ahenkan reclaimed same. Following his dispossession of the land, the plaintiff asked for a refund of his GH¢2,300.00 but the defendant could not refund the money and instant offered to replace him with a 12 acre farmland to cultivate cashew (see paragraph 16 of witness statement). After cultivating the cashew one E.K. Boahen surfaced and reclaimed ownership of the farmland. According to the plaintiff he spent GH¢6,000.00 in the cultivation on of the cashew hence his claim forGH¢8,300.00. 4 The defendant on the other hand said he never received any part payment for the half plot of land except the GH¢700.00 the plaintiff spent fixing pillars thereon and paying the operator. More so the defendant said he reclaimed the 2 acre farmland when he realized thatthe defendant was rathercultivating maize instead ofcashew. During cross-examination of the plaintiff, by the defendant, he insisted that he only cultivated the farmland in 2020 and was subsequently stopped by the real owner the same year. During cross-examination, thefollowing ensued; Q. Howmany cashew seedlingshave youplanted. A. I have plantedone thousand cashew seedlings. Q. Howmany seedlings survived. A. About hundred seedlings survived. As at now the whole farm has been cleared and so nocashew can be found ontheland. If what the plaintiff said is anything to go by then I wonder how a 12 acre land could just have a hundred cashew plants and be described as a cashew farm. He even added that the farm had been cleared and so there is no cashew on the land. My understanding thereforeis thatthe plaintiffdid not cultivateany cashew onthe farm. 5 More importantly during cross-examination of the defendant by the defendant on 9th August, 2023before his worship JosephHamidu Nasigre the following ensured. Q. Did I paycustomarydrink money toyouornot. A. Youdid not. Q. I am putting it to you that because I paid for the customary drink money in respect of the land that was why you could not have a share of the maize I cultivated ontheland. A. That is so. I wasexpecting tohave ashareofcashew andnotfood crops. The mere fact that the plaintiff said he refused to share the maize he cultivated with the defendant because he had paid him the customary drinks money is enough evidence that he did notcultivate cashew as bothofthemhad agreed. For violating the agreement to cultivate cashew on the land, the defendant in the eye of the law was right tin rescinding the agreement and reclaiming his land. A tenant farmer under customary law automatically forfeits the land if he cultivates anything otherthanwhat was agreed with his landlord. In his own evidence, the plaintiff had stated that one E.K. Boahen came and claimed ownership oftheland. That being thecase, the plaintiff is very much aware thatthe 6 land does not belong to the defendant so how does he expect him to execute a document onaland he doesnotown? This isridiculous. The plaintiff had claimed that he paid GH¢1,800.00 as part payment of the half plot of land he had intended to purchase. He did not however provide sufficient proof to this claim. Normally payments for the purchase of lands are receipted but the plaintiff provided none. Mere assertiondoes notconstitute proof. The plaintiff had deposed that he spent GH¢6,000.00 in cultivating the land. He is also on record to have stated that after the cultivation of the maize in 2020, he harvested same and gave no share to the defendant. It means whatever he harvested, he alone benefited without giving agrain tohis grantor,the defendant herein. For failing to give the defendant a share of the maize, I take it that the proceeds from the harvest will take care ofanyexpensed he incurred in cultivating themaize. Having failed to discharge the evidential burden placed on him, the plaintiff’s claims fail accordingly. CostsofGH¢1,000.00against the plaintiff. 7 H/W AUGUSTINE AKUSA-AM (SENIORMAGISTRATE) 8