Yeboah v Anthony and Another (A1/16/2022) [2025] GHADC 224 (18 February 2025)

INTHEDISTRICT COURT HELDAT BEREKUMON TUESDAY THE 18TH DAYOF FEBRUARY 2025BEFORE HIS WORSHIP AUGUSTINEAKUSA- AMDISTRICT MAGISTRATE. SUITNO. A1/16/2022 ANNAH YEBOAH VRS 1. KWAKU ANTHONY 2. NANA AKUA J U DGEME NT The plaintiff per her writ of summons claimed against the defendants a declaration of title and recovery of possession of all that farmland situate and lying at a place called “Nyekyemaam” at Botokrom and bounded by the properties of papa Agyei Cosmos, Obaapanin Abena Kwabena, Papa Adawurah and Nana Akua, second defendant herein. The plaintiff also seeks an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their assigns workmen, agents etc from interfering with thedisputed land. The plaintiff case is that the disputed farmland was originally acquired in its virgin state by her paternal grandfather by name Opanin Kwabena Yeboah. That Opanin Kwabena Yeboah gifted portions of the land to her father Kwaku Asuah and grandmother Abena Bommo respectively. That after the death of her grandmother, the portion which was gifted to her devolved on her father Kwaku Asuah. During 1 his live time Kwaku Asuah gifted the portion he had insisted from Abena Bommo (his mother)to his children including theplaintiff herein. The disputed land subsequently became the sole property of the plaintiff and so she and her husband cultivated same for some time and later leased a portion to one Ankamah Kwasi. Ankamah could not tell the land satisfactorily so same was granted toKofiTakyi. Daniel and his wife Pokuaa to cultivate cashew as ‘abunu’ tenants. When the cashew matured for harvesting, Kofi Takyi Daniel died so the farmland fell into ruins as same became weedy because the family of Kofi Takyi Daniel prevented Pokuaa fromharvesting the cashew she had helped her late husband tocultivate. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant who shares boundary with her advised her to weed the farm to protect the matured cashew trees. Following this advise she went the farm and realised that a portion of the land with her cashew thereonsold toone Kwame Anane by thedefendants. Hence this action. Fortheir part, the defendants denied selling any portion ofplaintiff’s land to Kwame Anane. They explained that their land shares boundary with the plaintiff’s land and flowers hand been planted to same as boundary features between their respective lands. They disclosed that for mischievous reasons the plaintiff has removed the flowersuponinstituted the instant action. They described the land as abounding the properties of the late Op. Kwaku Asuah (plaintiff’sfather), the lateNana Diawuo and Op.KooTakyi. 2 According to the defendants there portion of land was acquired centuries ago by the late Op. Kwame Kumah material grandfather of the second defendant. That the Op. Kwame Kumah cultivated the land for years but after facing financial difficulties, he sold the cocoa farm to the father of the second defendant, the late Op. Kwame Krah. A deed of conveyance was executed by the parties and witnessed by the then Botokrom Chief in 1976. The deed of transfer was tended marked Exhibit 1. According to second defendant, she was the one who introduced Kwasi Ankamah and his wife to the plaintiff. That when the Kwasi Ankamah and his wife were cultivate cashew as tenants of the plaintiff, the flowers which had been planted to save as boundary features remained undisturbed until they sold their portion to Kwame Anane where afterthe plaintiff removed themand commenced this action. Nana Kwadwo Takyi whose cashew farm shares boundary with the disputed land testified for defendants as DW1. DW1 told the court that flowers had been planted to separate the farmlands of the parties but the plaintiff for this reason removed them. He reiterated the fact that the portion sold to Kwame Anane farms part of the second defendant’s farm. After carefully examining the facts, evidence and pleadings I am of the considered opinion that the only issue for judicial determination is whether or not the defendantshave sold aportion oftheplaintiffs landtoKwame Anane. 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 of summons raises issues essential to the success of his case assumes the onus of 3 proof. See BANK OF WEST AFRICA LTD. VRS ACKUN (1963) GLR and Section 12 of Act 323. The civil onus is on the balance of probabilities. Therefore on the instant case, the burden has squarely on the plaintiff to adduce. Sufficient credible evidence toconvince the courtthat theland sold toKwame Anane belongs toher. In her writ of summons, pleadings and evidence in court, the plaintiff expressly stated that her farmland shares boundary with the second defendant. However during cross examination of the plaintiff by the second defendant on 15th July, 2022 (see page 6ofthe typed proceeding the following ensued; Q. Whichportion of your land have we carved out and sold. A. Your father and my father do not share any boundary yet you were able to sell out a partof myfarmland. Q. Doyou share boundary with me. A. No. The responses of the plaintiff under cross examination contradict her own evidence pleadings and endorsements in her writ of summons. During trial, the defendants had categorically stated that flowers had been planted along their common boundaries and that the plaintiff decided to remove them when she commenced this action. The plaintiff however denied this allegation. For instance on 15th July, 2022 the following ensued when the plaintiff was under further cross examination by the second defendant. Q. Doyou know there are flowers on our commonboundary. A. That isnot correct. 4 Q. Isuggesttoyou that after you suedus you uprooted the flowers from the boundary. A. That isnot correct. But interestingly when the plaintiff was cross examining the second defendant on 11/4/2022 she contradicted herselfinthe following ways. Q. I suggest to you that there were no flowers between your farm land and our landwhen I tookAnkamahtothe land. A. There wereflowersonthe boundary. Q. Whoplanted thoseflowers. A. They were plantedby my motherand my grandfatherKwame Kumah. Q. Isuggest toyouthatthe flowerswere planted by KwakuAnthony. The suggestion by the plaintiff that the flowers were planted by Kwaku Anthony is sufficient admission that there were indeed flowers on their common boundary. If there were no flowers saving as boundary features between their respective farmlands as she had claimed, how then did she know that same were planted by Kwaku Anthony? Clearly the plaintiff is not a credible witness. Her attempt to mislead the court hasbeenexposed by her ownstatementduring crossexamination. During trial, it was evident that it was the second defendant who even advised the plaintiff to get someone to clear her bushy farm. Again it was the second defendant who found a tenant farmer for the plaintiff so how could she have been the one to sellaportion ofthe plaintiff’s land? It’s unfair topay akind personwithingratitude. 5 In KWAW V AWORTWI (1989-90) I GLR 190 CA it was held that where a plaintiff alleged that a defendant had done certain acts which constituted trespass and the defendant denied those allegations, theplaintiff could not succeed in thatclaim. It he failed to lead evidence to prove the acts complained of. In the instant case, the evidence onsecond doesnotno the least support theplaintiff’sallegations. In NANA AKOTO III VRS AGYEMANG (Consolidated) (1962) I GLR 524 @ 532 SC it was held that the “evidence of adjoining owners is very essential when deciding ownership ofland”. In the instant case DW1 (Nana Kwadwo Takyi) whose cashew farm adjoins the disputed land stated clearly that the portion sold to Kwame Anane farms part of Adwoa Korkor’s(second defendant’smother)land. DW2 (Akueyaa Florence) who had once cultivated second defendant’s land with her husband and subsequently became tenant famer of the plaintiff testified in court that the portion sold out by the second defendant belongs toher (Second defendant). She corroboratedthe fact that lowerswereused toseparate the farmlandsofthe parties. At the end of trial, all the allegations made against the defendants by the plaintiff could not be proven. I hereby dismiss the suit for want of merit. Considering the fact that this action commenced in 03/03/33, I hereby award cost of GH₵3,000.00 in favour of the defendants. SGD 6 ……………………………….. H/WAUGUSTINE AKUS-AM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 7