TWENEBOAH AND ANOTHER VRS. GHANA GRID COMPANY LTD (GRIDCO) (AR/OB/DMC/A1/10/2022) [2025] GHADC 20 (21 January 2025)

KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT ADANSI ASOKWA ON TUESDAY THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE HER WORSHIP MRS. LINDA FREMAH BOAMAH-OKYERE, ESQ. SUIT NO.AR/OB/DMC/A1/10/2022 1. KWAME TWENEBOAH 2. ERIC ADJEI V GHANA GRID COMPANY LTD (GRIDCO) JUDGMENT BACKGROUND 1. The instant Writ of Summons was originally filed at the District Court, Obuasi on 5th May, 2022. The claims against the Defendant were as follows: a. A declaration that the compensation paid to the Plaintiffs by the Defendant for disturbance/acquisition of their high tension poles thereon is unlawful b. A further declaration that the mounting of the said high tension poles on portions of Plaintiffs’ land by Defendant without the payment of any compensation at all is unlawful c. An order compelling the Defendant to pay a fair, reasonable and adequate compensation to the Plaintiffs using the Land Valuation Board assessment for the land in the subject area d. Interest on any amount found due to the Plaintiffs in (c) above from the date the land was acquired till date of payment Page 1 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO e. An order directed at Defendant to forthwith, in consultation with the Plaintiffs have their compensation assessed using the Land Valuation Board assessment method f. Interest on any amount found due to the Plaintiffs from the date of acquisition of their properties g. Cost, including solicitor’s cost h. Any order as this honourable court might deem fit 2. The parties filed their written statements and eventually, their witness statements. By an order dated 6th February, 2024, Her Ladyship the Supervising High Court Judge, had the matter transferred to this Court. Case management conference was conducted and trial commenced on 10th October, 2024 and concluded on 10th December, 2024. Both Counsel in this matter have filed their written addresses and same have been considered in the determination of this matter. THE PLAINTIFFS’ CASE 3. The Plaintiffs filed a joint witness statement and testified through the 1st Plaintiff. It is their case that the Defendant company has encumbered their lands by erecting high voltage electricity lines on the lands. As a result of this encumbrance, the Plaintiffs stated that the Defendant company paid a sum of money to them as compensation which said money was unilaterally determined by the Defendant company. The Plaintiffs further contend that some portions of their lands have been rendered unusable but the Defendant has not paid compensation for the loss of usage of that land. It is the Plaintiffs’ case that they instituted an action at the High Court and Page 2 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO claimed compensation in respect of six (6) plots. The 1st Plaintiff stated that he received an inadequate amount of GHC.11,000.00 for two (2) plots leaving four (4) plots unpaid. According to 1st Plaintiff, the 2nd Plaintiff was also paid an unfair amount of GHC.11,000.00 for two (2) of his and GHC.8,000.00 for the third plot leaving one plot unpaid. The Plaintiffs did not call any witness but relied on documents tendered into evidence. THE DEFENDANT’S CASE 4. It is the Defendant company’s defence that the matter has been determined by the High Court, Obuasi and that the entire compensation was paid into court with notice to the Plaintiffs whilst the matter was still pending at the High Court which said money the Plaintiffs duly received. They also relied on exhibits filed in proof of their defence. ISSUES ARISING 5. The issues arising out of the facts presented by both parties which resolution of same shall determine this matter are: I. Whether or not the matter has been determined by the High Court, Obuasi II. Whether or not the Plaintiffs are entitled to any compensation BURDEN OF PROOF 6. In civil cases, the general rule is that the party who in his pleadings or his writ raises issues essential to the success of his case assumes the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities. This is codified in sections 11 (4) and 12(1)(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (Act 323). The Plaintiff is required by law Page 3 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO to prove his case on the balance or preponderance of probabilities and not with absolute certainty. See the cases of Faibi v State Hotels Corporation [1968] GLR 471 and In re Ashalley Botwe Lands; Adjetey Agbosu & Others. [2003-2004] SCGLR 420. The Supreme Court in the case of Klah v Phoenix Insurance Co. Ltd [2012] SCGLR 1139 stated as follows: “Where a party makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way e.g., by producing documents, description of things, reference to other facts, instances and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the witness box and repeating the averment on oath or having it repeated on oath by his witness. He proves it by producing other evidence of facts and circumstances from which the court can satisfy itself that what he avers is true. See also Okudzeto Ablakwa (No. 2) v Attorney-General & Anor [2012] 2 SCGLR 845 @ 847 and Ackah v Pergah Transport Limited & Others (2010) SGLR 736. 7. In the case of Takoradi Flour Mills Ltd v Samir Faris (2005-2006) SCGLR 882 at page 900, the court held to the effect that a party must demonstrate that his claim is more probable than that of the other in order to succeed. In evaluating whether or not a case is more probable than its rival version, all the evidence, be it that of the Plaintiff or the Defendant must be considered and the party in whose favour the balance tilts is the person whose case is more probable that the rival version and is therefore deserving of a favourable verdict. Page 4 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO 8. Also, in the case of Frabina Ltd v Shell Ghana Ltd. [2011] 33 GMJ 1 SC at 27-28 the court stated that “what must be noted is that, in evaluating evidence in judicial proceedings, a court has several sources to draw evidence from: 1. First are the pleadings. Where the pleadings are not in contention, it is safe for the trial judge to draw from it and make his conclusions… 2. The second is the oral evidence that has been led in court. The credibility of oral evidence is normally tested through cross-examination… 3. The third is the documentary evidence. This normally takes the form of documents that are tendered during the course of trial and upon which questions are asked during examination in chief and cross-examination. It can also take the form of reports submitted by court appointed expert witnesses such as surveyors, accountants, medical doctors etc. who testify and tender in reports prepared by them to help the judge in determining the case one way or another. 4. The fourth are judicial decisions and authorities touching and dealing with principles of law in the subject matter of the case on trial. This is normally done during the closing addresses by Counsel of the parties to the court.” 9. Also relevant to this case is section 14 of Act 323 which states that ‘except as otherwise provided by law, unless and until it is shifted a party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or non-existence of which is essential to the claim or defence he is asserting.’ 10. From the authorities above, both Plaintiffs and Defendant carry a burden to prove on the balance of probabilities, their respective claim and defence they are each asserting. Thus, it is the duty of the Plaintiffs to prove that they are entitled to compensation in respect of the lands claimed whilst the Page 5 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO Defendant bears the obligation of proving that the matter has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction and that the compensation has been paid by them as claimed. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE 11. The first issue arising out of this case is whether a plea of res judicata will lie against the Plaintiffs in respect of their claim for compensation. The Supreme Court amply discussed the doctrine of res judicata in the case of Yamoah v Yeboah [2023] GHASC 85 (5 July 2023). The court stated that the doctrine of res judicata is to prevent the relitigating of a matter that has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, tribunal or arbitration among the same parties or their privies. In the case of In Re Sekyedumase Stool; Nyame v Kese alias Konto [1998-99] SCGLR 478, particularly at page 479, it was held per Acquah JSC (as he then was) that: “The plea of res judicata can be invoked in respect of any final judgment delivered on the merits by a judicial tribunal of a competent jurisdiction. Such a judgment is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action”. (Emphasis mine) 12. Similarly, in the case of In Re Kwabeng Stool: Karikari v Ababio II [[2001- 2002] SCGLR 515 at page 530 it was held concerning the plea of res judicata as follows: “The doctrine or principle of estoppel is founded on the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, meaning “it concerns the State that lawsuits be Page 6 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO not protracted”. Also, “no man ought to be twice vexed, if it be found to the court that it be for one and the same cause” (nemo debet bis vexari, si constat veriae quod sit pro una et eadem causa). If an action is brought, and the merits of the question are determined between the parties, and a final judgment is obtained by either, the parties are precluded, and cannot canvass the same question again in another action, although, perhaps, some objection or argument might have been urged upon the first trial which would have led to a different judgment.” See also the cases of Conca Engineering (GH) Lt v Moses [1984-86] 2 GLR 319; Sasu v Amuasakyi & Anor [2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 742, Boakye v Appollo Cinemas & Estates (GH)Ltd [2007-2008] SCGLR 458; Assafuah v Arhin Davies [2013-2014] SCGLR 1459. 13. The Court in the Yamoah v Yeboah case supra emphasized that a party relying on the plea of res judicata must prove the following: a. The parties in the instant case are the same parties in the earlier case or their privies; b. The subject matter in the instant case is the same as the subject matter in the earlier case c. The issue in the instant case has been decided in the earlier case d. The decision or judgment in the earlier case was final and not interlocutory in nature 14. In proof of its assertion that this matter has been effectively dealt with by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Defendant tendered into evidence Exhibit 2 which is a judgment of the High Court, Obuasi dated 28th January, 2021; a judgment of His Lordship Charles Gyamfi Danquah. It is not in Page 7 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO dispute that Exhibit 2 is a final judgment and not an interlocutory one. The authenticity of this judgment is also not in doubt. The parties herein were parties to that action at the High Court which resulted in the said judgment; this is also not in doubt. What is in doubt is whether the subject matter of the instant case is the same as the subject matter in suit number C1/12/18 which was filed at the High Court. Also, in doubt is whether the issue of payment of compensation to the Plaintiffs by the Defendant company in this case was also an issue in that suit which was determined by the High Court. 15. On the question of the subject matter of the two suits: The lands before this court in respect of which compensation is being claimed by the Plaintiffs are: 1. Plot No. 2 Block A, Watchman, within the Adansi North District in the Ashanti Region belonging to 1st Plaintiff. This is evidenced by Exhibits A and B. 2. Plot No. 3 Block A, Watchman in the Adansi North District in the Ashanti Region belonging to 2nd Plaintiff. This is evidenced by Exhibits C and D. 16. The subject matter before the High Court, Obuasi is found in Exhibit 3 which is the witness statement of 1st Plaintiff herein which he filed for himself and on behalf of some of the other Plaintiffs therein. It is pertinent to note that the authenticity of this Exhibit 3 is not in dispute. Indeed, 1st Plaintiff admitted to being the originator of this Exhibit during cross examination by Counsel for Defendant as follows; Page 8 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO Q. Take a look at this document, do you recall this to be your witness statement at the High Court A. That is correct 17. Per the said witness statement, the lands which the Plaintiffs herein led evidence on as belonging to them and in respect of which they prayed the High Court to declare them owners and to whom compensation ought to be paid were the lands in respect of which allocation notes and sites plans were attached and marked as Exhibit E series, therein. These included allocation notes and sites plans in respect of Plot No.2 Block A situated at Watchman in the Adansi North District, Ashanti Region and Plot No. 3 Block A also situated in Watchman in the Adansi North District, Ashanti Region in favour of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs herein, respectively. There were other site plans and allocation notes attached, but those were in favour of the other Plaintiffs therein who are not before this court. The Plaintiffs explained this in paragraph 14 of the said witness statement as follows; “The 2nd Defendant therefore issued Allocation Notes and Site Plans to all Allottees including the other Plaintiffs (I attach as Exhibits ‘E’ series Allocation Notes and Site Plans granted to the Plaintiffs by the 2nd Defendant).” 18. In my view, there is enough evidence on the record pointing to the conclusion that the subject matters of the suit which was instituted at the High Court, Obuasi by the Plaintiffs herein (together with others) and with suit number C1/12/18 are the same subject matters before this court. 19. The next question to consider is whether the issue of payment of compensation before this court was determined by the High Court, Obuasi. Page 9 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO The Plaintiffs’ contention included the argument that the matter which was determined by the High Court bothered on ownership of the subject lands and not the payment of compensation. The processes filed at the High Court by both sides herein which were tendered by Defendant company are of good use in resolving this issue. I point out again that the authenticity of none of these documents is in dispute. In their amended statement of claim filed pursuant to leave granted on 15th May, 2019, the Plaintiffs stated in paragraph 16 as follows: “16. WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants for: a. A declaration that the Plaintiffs acquired their respective land from the Akrokerri Stool, the lawful owners of the land and have paid full compensation for their acquisition b. A declaration that as lawful owners of the land situate at a place commonly called ‘WATCHMAN’ on Akrokerri Stool land, along the Obuasi-Kumasi motor road, the Plaintiffs are as of right entitled to the due and prompt payment of reasonable compensation from the Defendant for the erection of the 1st Defendant’s ‘High Tension’ Electricity poles and lines on the Plaintiffs respective land (emphasis is mine) c. A declaration that as their grantor the 2nd Defendant is in duty bound to protect the Plaintiffs’ interest in the land d. A declaration that the 3rd Defendant has no interest in or title to the disputed land and her obstruction of the due payment of compensation by 1st Defendant to the Plaintiffs is illegal and willful (emphasis mine) Page 10 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO e. An order directed at the 3rd Defendant to pay interest on any due compensation to the Plaintiffs from 1st July, 2017 till the final payment of such compensation at the bank lending rate (emphasis mine) f. Any further order(s) as this honourable Court deems fit g. Cost 20. Also, in their witness statement filed at the High Court which has been admitted herein and marked as Exhibit 3, the 1st Plaintiff herein made these averments on oath as follows: “15. That when the 1st Defendant came unto the land the 2nd Defendant wrote to it directing it to pay due compensation to the Plaintiffs (letter from 2nd Defendant to 1st Defendant annexed as Exhibit ‘F’). 19. That the land in question does not belong to 3rd Defendant and his obstruction of the payment of compensation to the Plaintiffs is baseless and unlawful. 20. That all the Plaintiffs are the bona fide owners of the various plots and are lawfully entitled to compensation from the 1st Defendant.” 21. With these pieces of evidence on the record, there is no gainsaying the fact that the Plaintiffs went to the High Court to seek for compensation in respect of their lands which they believed were due them; and it has already been found that those lands were Plot numbers 2 and 3, Block A, Watchman. 22. On page 4 of the judgment of the High Court, Exhibit 2 herein, the Court outlined the issues which were set down for trial there as follows; “1.Whether the plaintiffs are the bona fide owners of the disputed land Page 11 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO 2.Whether any compensation due from the 1st Defendant is payable to the plaintiffs (emphasis mine) 3.Whether the plaintiffs acquired their respective lands from the right source 4.Whether the 3rd defendant has any interest in the disputed land 5.Whether the land in dispute is for Kwapia stool or the Akrokerri stool 6.Any other issue arising out of the pleadings” 23. On page 18 of its judgment, the High Court determined the issues as follows: “In conclusion I state that the plaintiffs are the bona fide owners of the land in dispute having acquired same from the right source. They are therefore the persons entitled to receive compensation from the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant has all along admitted that compensation is due the rightful owners of the land and paid the money into Court. (Emphasis mine) Judgment is therefore entered for the Plaintiffs as follows; 1. A declaration that the plaintiffs acquired their respective lands from the Akrokerri stool, the lawful owners of the land and have paid full compensation for their acquisition 2. That the plaintiffs are to be paid any compensation due on the land from the 1st Defendant. (Emphasis mine) 3. That 1st Defendant having paid the compensation due the plaintiffs into court and same ordered to be paid into an interest yielding account of the judicial service shall be released to the plaintiffs forthwith which amount is GHC. 281,515.93 together with the interest accrued on same. (Emphasis mine) Page 12 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO 4. It is ordered that the 3rd defendant has no interest in or title to the disputed land and that his obstruction of the due payment of the compensation by 1st Defendant to the plaintiffs is illegal and willful 5. The plaintiffs’ relief (e) for an order directed at the 3rd Defendant to pay interest on any due compensation to the plaintiffs from 1st July, 2017 till the final payment of such compensation at the bank lending rate cannot be acceded to. What is due the plaintiffs as a result of the conduct of the 3rd Defendant is interest at the commercial bank lending rate from when the 1st Defendant was to pay the money to the plaintiffs in July 2017 till the date the money was paid into court on 2nd April, 2019. The Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to interest on the GHC.281,515.93 at the commercial bank interest rate from the 3rd Defendant from July 2017 to March 2019. (Emphasis mine) 6. The 2nd Defendant did all it could to defend the interest of its grantees i.e., the Plaintiffs and therefore incurred no liability towards the Plaintiffs. 7. The 1st Defendant was not the impediment in the way of the Plaintiffs on payment of the compensation and therefore incurred no liability. The non- payment was due to the unreasonable conduct of the 3rd Defendant”. (Emphasis mine) 24. The above evidence evinces the fact that the issue of payment of compensation, inter alia, was raised at the High Court and same was effectively dealt with in favour of the Plaintiffs herein. Therefore, in specific answer to the first issue, I find that the matter before me has already been determined at the High Court and a plea of res judicata will therefore lie Page 13 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO against the Plaintiffs herein. Counsel for the Plaintiffs in his written submission raised the following issue: “Whether or not the Plaintiffs land that as depicting by our exhibits A1, B, C, and D has been affected by the transmission line of the Defendant’s company – Gridco in addition whether the compensation has been paid in relation to this plot of land.” It is noteworthy that the said exhibits are: 1. The plan of land for Kwame Tweneboah which Plaintiffs marked as Exhibit A and was also admitted by the court as Exhibit A. 2. The allocation note of Kwame Tweneboah, the plan of land for Eric Adjei and the allocation note for Eric Adjei which Plaintiffs marked as Exhibit A series and were admitted by the court as Exhibits B, C and D, respectively. (The plot number on Exhibit A and B is Plot Number 2 Block A whilst the plot number on Exhibits C and D is Plot Number 3 Block A. 3. The Rent Demand Note issued in the name of Opanin Kojo Nkrumah and dated 1-04-19 which Plaintiffs marked as Exhibit B and was admitted by the Court as Exhibit E 4. Receipts dated 22-04-19, 21-03-2020 and 21-06-2021 which were marked by the Plaintiffs as Exhibit B series and admitted by the court as Exhibit F, G and H, respectively 5. Exhibits C series as marked by the Plaintiffs are the cheques and acknowledgement forms issued in favour of the Plaintiffs by Defendant company which were admitted into evidence by the court and marked as Exhibits J series, K series and L series. Page 14 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO 25.Therefore, to answer the question raised by Counsel, it is not in dispute that these two lands have been affected by the transmission line of the Defendant company. The evidence analysed above also shows that in respect of these lands, the Plaintiffs herein have been adjudged rightful owners by the High Court who are entitled to the payment of compensation and which compensation has been found to have been duly paid by the Defendant company and received by the Plaintiffs. 26.Perusing the totality of the record before me, the filing of the instant action appears to me to be an avenue for the Plaintiffs to make a case for themselves in respect of the quantum of compensation due them and its mode of determination. They claim that the amount which was paid into the High Court and was received by them was not adequate compensation given the market value of their plots of land. They also claim that there were some lands in respect of which no compensation was paid at all. To begin with, only one parcel of land was placed before this court as belonging to the 1st Plaintiff which is Plot 2 Block A situated at Watchman. Undeniably, one can see from the site plan that the said Plot 2 Block A is a large parcel of land, however, that is the only piece of land in respect of which 1st Plaintiff claimed compensation, before this court and which is not different from what was placed before the High Court, Obuasi. The 2nd Plaintiff also placed the land with number Plot 3 Block A situated at Watchman before this Court for compensation and it was the same piece of land in respect of Page 15 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO which the High Court declared the 2nd Plaintiff as rightful owner who was entitled to the payment of compensation thereof. There was no evidence led to support the claim of unpaid compensation for any other plots of land. Rather the Plaintiffs exhibited Exhibit J series in proof of their assertion in paragraphs 12 and 15 of their witness statement that they had each received GHC.11,000.00 for two (2) plots of theirs with the 2nd Plaintiff receiving an additional GHC.8,000.00 for a third plot. A look at the said exhibits which are cheques and acknowledgment forms clearly shows that those monies were compensation paid to the Plaintiffs for their lands which had been affected by the activities of the Defendant company but it does not reveal in respect of which particular plots of lands the money was paid. The Defendant in cross examination stated that those payment were made in respect of different claims made by the Plaintiffs after the judgment of the High Court. Per Exhibit J series, these monies were paid sometime in 2022 which was after the payment of compensation to the tune of GHC.281,515.93 into the High Court, Obuasi. During cross examination, Plaintiffs put up the case that the compensation paid which is evidenced by Exhibit J series were in respect of some other plots of land different from Plot Number 2 Block A and Number 3 Block A, Watchman. This is what ensued during cross examination of Defendant’s representative by Counsel for Plaintiffs: Q. I am putting it to you that 1st Plaintiff made a claim on your company for 5 plots of land after the judgment of the High Court Page 16 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO A. I am not aware of the 5 plots specifically Q. I am further putting it to you that out of the 5 plots you redeemed one plot which is confirmed by Exhibit J1 and J2. A. Exhibits J1 and J2 are in relation to a specific claim Q. I am putting it to you that you promised the 1st Plaintiff that the rest of the claim will be paid after you had received funds A. I disagree. There was no promise like that Q. I am suggesting it to you that the document covering the land that your company made payment in relation to, were kept by the company A. Yes, my Lord Q. The documents covering the land in respect of which payments were not made, were given back to them A. Those documents were given back to them because those lands did not fall within the right of way 25. The Plaintiffs did not lead any evidence to show which plots of land in respect of which they were entitled to compensation but such compensation had not been paid. The evidence led during cross examination, reproduced above, shows that the documents relating to affected lands in respect of which compensation had not been paid, were in the custody of the Plaintiffs themselves, but quite interestingly, they did not present those documents for consideration by this court. In effect, the Plaintiffs merely alleged that they had some plots of land different from Plot Numbers 2 and 3, Block B which had been encumbered by the Defendant’s high voltage lines and poles in respect of which Defendant had to pay them compensation but had Page 17 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO refused and/or failed to pay adequately or at all; yet the Plaintiffs did not let the court in on which other plots of land those were. I take the view that there is no basis for this court to grant an order for the payment of compensation in respect of unknown plots of lands in favour of the Plaintiffs. 26. The issue of the inadequacy of the compensation paid in respect of Plot 2 Block A and Plot 3 Block A, Watchman, in my humble opinion, ought to have been dealt with at the High Court which the Plaintiffs failed to do. Since they were the ones claiming for adequate and reasonable compensation, they bore the burden of producing sufficient evidence as to what quantum of compensation would be reasonable, fair and adequate. Perhaps, they could have put before the High Court, a valuation report of their lands to corroborate their assertion that their lands sell on the open market at GHC.50,000.00 as they allege in their evidence. The Plaintiffs also had the opportunity to oppose the motion on notice to pay money into court which was filed by the Defendant company herein indicating that the compensation had been paid into court for release to the rightful party as the High Court would determine. Attached to that motion was a notice of payment into court which read as follows: “TAKE NOTICE that the 1st Defendant has paid the sum of GHC.281,515.93 into court. The said GHC.281,515.93 is in satisfaction of the compensation which the Plaintiffs claim.” I am not privy to whether this application was challenged by the Plaintiffs or not, however, the High Court acknowledged this amount in its judgment as compensation due the Plaintiffs and ordered that the money be released Page 18 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO to them. It is my humble view that, if the Plaintiffs were aggrieved by this determination of the High Court as to the quantum of the compensation as well as the mode of its determination, their remedy would have laid in an appeal rather than filing a fresh action at the District Court. 27. In fact, the language employed in the Plaintiffs’ witness statement evince an intention to express their grievances about the outcome of the matter at the High Court. The relevant portions of the witness statement are reproduced below: “9. The Defendant in taking over our land for its project never engaged us in the valuation and assessment of compensation but unilaterally determined a sum of money as compensation. 10. The Defendant has also taken over or by the erection of the poles made portions of our land unusable but has failed to pay any compensation at all. 11. That we instituted action at the High Court, Obuasi claiming six (6) plots. 12. That out of the six (6) plots the Defendant unilaterally paid GHC.11,000.00 for two (2) of my plots. (Attached are copies of the cheques evidencing payment is marked as Exhibit ‘C’) 13. The sum paid is woefully inadequate, and not commensurate with the current value of land in the area.” (Emphasis mine) 28. The Plaintiffs admit instituting an action at the High Court for the payment of compensation and yet turn around to deny doing so, rather claiming that the institution of the matter at the High Court was for the determination of ownership. This assertion is clearly not supported by the evidence led. The Page 19 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO record shows that the original party the Plaintiffs sued at the High Court was Ghana Grid Company Ltd. Had they intended to sue for ownership of the lands, GRIDCO would not have been a party to that action. The chronology of events and processes filed at the High Court indicated that the Plaintiffs intended and did sue GRIDCO for the payment of compensation. The two stools were joined to the suit all in furtherance of the determination of question payment of compensation to the appropriate party which turned out to include the Plaintiffs herein. 29. On the second issue of whether or not the Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation, it is abundantly clear from the evidence led especially from the judgment of the High Court, Obuasi relevant portions of which have already been reproduced above, that the Plaintiffs are indeed entitled to compensation for the encumbrance of their lands by the activities of the Defendant company. The Defendant does not deny this and the High Court has also made a determination in that regard such that in respect of Plot numbers 2 and 3 Block A, Watchman, the Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation and which said compensation has already been paid to Plaintiffs by the Defendant company. As has already been found, these are the only two plots of lands before this court and therefore the court has not been placed in the position to determine the payment of compensation in respect of any other plots of land allegedly belonging to the Plaintiffs. Page 20 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO CONCLUSION 30. I find therefore, in respect of issue I, that the matter before this court has been determined by the High Court, Obuasi and I shall decline the invitation to entertain this action which has been filed in hopes of relitigating the same matter. In respect of issue II, the Plaintiffs have already been adjudged by the High Court as being entitled to compensation which said compensation has been duly paid by the Defendant company and received by the Plaintiffs. 31. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs’ action fails and same is accordingly dismissed as unmeritorious. AWARD OF COSTS 32. In awarding costs, I have taken into consideration the length of time within which this case travelled which is about two years as well as the amount of work done and processes filed in the course of that period. Counsel for the Defendant pointed the court to the cost incurred from having to travel by air from Tema to attend court. I am of the view that this travel expense has been reasonably incurred considering that the Defendant company is based in Tema from where its lawyers work. In exercising my discretion, I award costs of GHC.20,000.00 against both Plaintiffs, thus each Plaintiff shall pay GHC.10,000.00. Page 21 of 22 KWAME TWENEBOAH & ANOR. V GRIDCO SGD MRS. LINDA FREMAH BOAMAH-OKYERE MAGISTRATE 21/01/2025 PLAINTIFFS ABSENT DEFENDANT ABSENT RICHARD AMOFAH, ESQ. FOR SELMA AWUMBILA, ESQ, FOR DEFENDANT PRESENT KOFI ADDO, ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFFS ABSENT Page 22 of 22