Sampson v Kwabena and Another (A1/03/2023) [2025] GHADC 239 (29 January 2025)

IN THE DISTRIC T COURT HELD AT BEREKUM ON WEDNESDAY THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025. BEFORE HIS WORSHIP AUGUSTINE AKUSA-AM THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. [ SUITNO. A1/03/2023 MR. ANANE SAMPSON = PLAINTIFF VRS 1 KWABENA = DEFENDANTS 2. KWADWOFORDJOUR Parties present. JUDGMENT The plaintiff herein, Anane Sampson caused a writ to be prepared for him claiming the reliefs hereunder against the first defendant; 1 (a) An order to compel the first defendant to replace him with a new building plot after the one he had earlier sold to him at the cost of GH¢4,000.00 on 9th February, 2017 had been seized by the Chiefof Domfete. (b) Or in the alternative pay him an amount of GH¢10,000.00 being the current value of a building plotat Adwame West Berekumwhere the disputed plot issituate and lying. The Summary of the subject matter of the instant action is that the plaintiff purchased a plot of land from the first defendant at the cost of GH¢4,000.00. This plot of land is situate and lying at Adwame West-Berekum on Domfete Stool Land. The Plot Number is 57 Block F Sector 5. After the purchase a site plan, a deed of transfer and a statutory declarationofsale werepreparedfor the plaintiffand same tenderedin evidence. Before the plaintiff could develop the land sold to him, another person had come into the land to develop same. It turned out that it was the Domfete Chief who had reclaimed the land on the grounds that when the alien was demarcated into building plots, the stool has not given its share as custom demands. Following this development, the plaintiff and the first defendant approached the Okyeame Tumtum and Dwantoahemaa of Domfete to intervene. They were asked to pay GH¢150.00 and GH¢1,400.00 respectively. The GH¢150.00 was for the inspection of the disputed land by the Chiefs whilst the GH¢1,400.00was meant topreparedocuments forthe plaintiff. 2 After paying these moneys to the Chief of Domfete, they were told that the Chief had already granted Plot Number 57 Block F Sector 5 to another person. All attempts by the plaintiff to recover his money or building plot from the defendant have been unsuccessfulhence this action. Before commencement of trial, the 1st defendant applied to join his grantor Kwadwo Fordjourtothe suit assecond defendant and was granted. Second defendant submitted that once he had sold the disputed plot to the first defendant, his interest in same is thereby extinguished and so the first defendant ought tohave assertedhis rightsover theland. At the end of trial, the issue for determination is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Before I deal with the issue for determination, I shall briefly touch on the burdenofproof. The law is settled that a party who raises issues essential to the success of his case assumes the burden of proof. See FAIBI VRS STATE HOTELS CORPORATION (1968) I GLR 471. The civil onus is on the balance of probabilities. See section 12 of the Evidence Act 1975(NRCD323). The contract for the sale ofthe land in issue was made between the plaintiff and the first defendant. A statutory declaration was executed by the first defendant evidencing the 3 transfer of his interest in the land to the plaintiff. The statutory declaration was tenderedin evidence and marked asExhibit ‘A’. Paragraph 3 of Exhibit A states as follows, “That I am the lawful and undisputed owner of Plot No. 57 Block F located at Adwame West/Berekum without the moral and financial support of any family member or members and therefore free from all family encumbrances”. Paragraph 4 of Exhibit A further states as follows, “That precisely prior to the making of this declaration, I have never at anytime sold to or pledged to, or mortgaged to, nor transferred the said plot to any other person or persons, company or companies which wouldgenerateanyfurther litigation whatsoever” These depositions and more in Exhibit ‘A’ undoubtedly convinced the plaintiff to part with his money in the hope that he was acquiring an unencumbered plot of land for his dream project. If subsequently it turned out that the land was after all encumbered, who should bearthe brunt? Should the plaintiff lose his money? Certainly not. The first defendant had not put up any serious defence except to shift the blame on the Domfete Chief who took overthe disputed land. I will refrain frommaking any Judicial comment on the propriety or otherwise of the Domfete Chief since he is not a party to the instant suit. However suffice to say that peculiar customary practices, usages etc. in traditionalcommunities in Ghana must berespected. 4 In law, a breach of the contract for the sale of land may occur if one party refuses to complete the sale or if there is a misrepresentation or misdescription which goes to the root of the contract. The remedy available to one party complaining of a breach by the other depends on the nature of the breach. The remedies available to either the Vendor or the Vendee are specific performance of the contract, damages for breach of the contractorrescissionofthe contract. In the instant case the first defendant misrepresented the facts by deposing in Exhibit ‘A’ that “since the said plot is my own legitimate property, I have every right to transfer the said plot in any lucrative way that will suit my convenience” when in actual fact he had not satisfied the customary requirements to be fully entitled to the landin dispute. The above misrepresentationby the first defendant clearlybreaches the contractofsale ofPlot Number 57Block 7Section5situate at Adwame West-Berekum. On the totality of the evidence adduced in court, I hereby enter Judgement for the plaintiff asfollows: (a) The first defendant is ordered to find another building plot for the plaintiff or in thealternative; (b) Payanamount ofGH¢10,000.00tothe plaintifftoenablehimacquire anewplot. (c) CostsofGH¢1,000.00for theplaintiff. 5 The second defendant is however discharged since no adverse findings have been made against him. SGD H/W AUGUSTINEAKUSA-AM (MAGISTRATE) 6