ABDUL KARIM VRS ISAAC AZANU (A1/10/2021) [2025] GHADC 78 (19 May 2025)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT KASOA – OFAAKOR SITTING BEFORE HER WORSHIP LINDA AMISSAH ON WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY, 2025 SUIT NO. A1/10/2021 ABDUL KARIM ……………. PLAINTIFF VRS ISAAC AZANU …………….. DEFENDANT JUDGMENT The plaintiff commenced this action on 2nd February, 2021, seeking these reliefs endorsed on his writ of summons: • An order directing the defendant to release the plot of land situate at Ofaakor, Kasoa which the defendant promised to give him after he assisted the defendant to pay his debt of ghc2,500 in 2017 • Costs On the 15th September, 2021, the defendants filed a defence and counterclaimed for: • An amount of ghc9,250 from the plaintiff being money paid through the plaintiff to his friend to travel out of the jurisdiction. The plaintiff closed his case on the 23rd November, 2022 and the defendant was slated to open his case on the 19th November, 2022. The defendant after the plaintiff closed his case failed to attend court to open his case for a little over a year although hearing notices were served on him. On the 13th November, 2024, the court had no option than to dismiss the counterclaim of the defendant, strike out his witness statement and that filed for his witness and allow the plaintiff to prove his case. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF The plaintiff testified by himself. He told the court that the defendant is his neighbor. The defendant sometime back asked him if he knew someone who could assist him in travelling. He introduced the defendant to a friend who could assist him travel. After a while, the defendant said he was selling his parcel of land at Oyibi. Initially, he was not interested however the defendant persuaded him and he agreed to purchase it. Together with the defendant he went to inspect the land after which he paid an initial amount of ghc2,500 to him as part payment of the purchase price of the land. Subsequently, he paid ghc1,000 to him to complete the full payment of the purchase price of the land. The defendant after receiving the money, was reluctant to give him the documents covering the land. When the documents were not forthcoming, the defendant promised to give him a different land at Ofaakor and also refund ghc1,000 out of the money he paid to him. The defendant indeed refunded the ghc 1,000 to him however, he failed to give him the land as promised. He prays the court to compel the defendant to give him the land as promised. The plaintiff attached a receipt issued by Sualiheen Company Ltd indicating an amount of ghc3,000 received from Karim Khalid. He also tendered an application form and a supposed Indenture in the name of the defendant. BURDEN OF PROOF It is the law of evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of facts in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail. It is also trite that matters that are capable of proof must be proved by producing sufficient evidence so that, on all the evidence, a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact is more probable than its non-existence. SARKODIE V FKA LTD ( 2009) SCGLR 65; BOGOSU GOLD LTD V NTRAWA [2011] 1 SCGLR 416. ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT CAN BE ORDERED TO GIVE THE PLAINTIFF A LOT OF LAND. A scrutiny of the Exhibits in support of the case of the plaintiff in no way revealed that the plaintiff lent the defendant any money. The receipt tendered by the plaintiff has the name Karim Khalid, a name different from that of the plaintiff. Moreover, the receipt did not disclose what the payment was for. The plaintiff also tendered an application form with the name Abdul Karim. This also did not disclose any money lent to the plaintiff. The last document, a deed of assignment, had the name of the defendant and that of the Blow Ventures. There is nothing in this document that shows that there was any agreement between the parties for the defendant to give the plaintiff a parcel of land in exchange for any money the plaintiff lent to the defendant. In a nutshell, the exhibits tendered by the plaintiff in no way had a connection to his assertion that he lent some money to the defendant, and in return, the defendant promised to deliver to him a parcel of land. He only made assertions which in law, do not amount to proof. As held in the case of DZAISU V GHANA BREWERIES LTD (2007/2008) SCGLR 539, “ … a bare assertion of a party of his pleadings in the witness box without proof did not shift the evidential burden onto the other party.” The plaintiff, in my opinion, has not been able to satisfy the court as regards the burden placed on him on a balance of probabilities. In conclusion, I hold that he is not entitled to his relief, and his claim is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (SGD) H/W LINDA AMISSAH MAGISTRATE