DOMPREH VRS. BOTWE AND OTHERS (A11/13/2021) [2024] GHADC 558 (20 December 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT VAKPO HELD ON THE 20TH DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE HER WORSHIP COMFORT ASAMOAH SARPONG [Mrs.], DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. SUIT No. A11/13/2021 PETER KWAME DOMPREH Plaintiff SUING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SIBLINGS VURSES 1. EMMANUEL BOTWE 2. WUKPO KOFI 3. DIKRO KUMA AWEME 4. VICTOR AMA Defendants 5. TOGBE KOTOKU DZENA 6. ALEXANDER SAMAH 7. NFRAMA BAM JUDGMENT The plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally as follows: [a]. Damages for the destruction caused to a hundred and fifty-one [151] palm trees and a keg of palm wine by the defendants which palm trees and palm wine are the property of the plaintiff and his siblings. [b]. General damages for any inconvenience caused to the plaintiff. 1 [c]. Costs of filling. Before the court could take the plea of the defendants the defendants filed their joint statement of defence. The court thus did not take the plea of the defendants. Parties filed their witness statements and the suit was put down for hearing. The issue for determination is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the destruction of the felled palm trees. I must state at the onset that part of the hearing was conducted when the court was differently constituted. THE CASE FOR THE PLAINTIFF The plaintiff in his witness statement averred that he and his brother Christian Kosi Dompreh engaged one Togbe Yabani, Juliana Sama and Lebene Dzandu to plant two hundred and forty [240] palm trees for them at Aveme Amanfrom Sigbe. Upon maturity they started harvesting the fruits. They later decided to tap the palm trees for palm wine and engaged one Atta Srem to do the job for them. Atta Srem fell 151 palm trees and started tapping the wine. He got eight drums of palm wine and kept same in the plantation. Then the defendants caused the arrest of the palm wine tapper and then caused destruction to the palm wine in the 8 drums as well as the felled palm trees and the items the tapper used to do his work on the farm. That the defendants also caused the arrest of both plaintiffs on an allegation that they had stolen their palm trees. That they have started farming on the land again without any hindrance. They are therefore seeking Gh¢50,000.00 in damages for the destruction the defendants caused to the palm wine and the felled palm trees which were producing the wine. 2 In cross- examination the plaintiff maintained that he caused Atta Srem to fell and tap 151 palm stress not 61 trees. He said he was not aware that when the defendant caused the arrest of Atta Srem the police led Atta to the land to count the palm trees. Atta also did not tell him that the defendant had warned him not to tap the palm trees. He said the land belonged to him and that was why he engaged Atta to fell the palm trees for him. That the defendant did not belong to the Sowli family and so could not grant land belonging to the family. The plaintiff said he acquired palm seedlings for some people who had returned from an Agric course to do the planting for them. He admitted the land is a family land, but once again said the defendant is not his family member to question why he was into commercial farming on the family land. But then the head of family was alive when the case started and he even wrote to the defendant. In answering questions by the 2nd defendant the plaintiff said he was not aware that Atta Srem told the head of family that 51 [fifty-one] palm trees were felled. He denied any knowledge that Atta Srem was warned by the defendants to desist from felling more palm trees when he felled additional ten [10] trees. All he knew was that when Atta was arrested and he told the police that he authorised Atta to fell the palm trees he was also arrested. He did not know Atta felled a total of 61 palm trees. To the 3rd defendant’s questions the witness said Emmanuel Botwe is not the head of family of the Sowli Family. He said Atta Srem did not inform him that the palm trees he felled totalled 61. He said he is aware that anyone who wanted to fell palm trees on the land sought permission but that was for naturally grown palm trees. That he planted the palm trees on the family land with the knowledge of the head of family. He said the 3rd defendant is from the Dzewu family and that could not speak to issues in the Sowli family. 3 To the 4th defendant’s questions the plaintiff said the land on which he planted the palm belongs to the Sowli Family, which the head of family documented and he the plaintiff has a copy. The 4th defendant put to the plaintiff that he had not seen the alleged felled palm trees. The plaintiff answered that the 4th defendant was right because the land did not belong to the defendants’ family. The plaintiff also disagreed with the 5th defendant that the land on which the palm stood belonged to the defendants. The plaintiff said historically the defendants predecessors gave the land to the Sowli family and that the donor did not have any interest in the land again once rites were performed for it, everything on the land became property of the Sowli family. He rejected the assertion that because it was Kotoku Dzaha who gifted the Sowli family the land in issue, any time the Sowli family wanted to install a new head of family it was Torgbe Kotoku Dzahe who exercised authority. He rejected the assertion that Emmanuel Botwe is the head of the Sowli family. The plaintiff also rejected the assertion that only natural palm grew on the land. The plaintiff further stated that the land Kotoku Dzahe gifted to the Sowli family was a personally acquired land. He did not accept that Kotoku Dzahe @Armah was a stool father. He said the 4th defendant’s predecessor showed him the boundaries of the disputed land and he never objected to their presence and activities on the land, even when his [plaintiff] brother was cultivating the land. In answer to the 6th defendant’s questions the plaintiff said he heard the 6th defendant led a police investigative officer to the land, he did not see them. And that it was the 6th defendant who led people to destroy the palm trees. To the 7th defendant’s questions the plaintiff said he was told by the labourer as well as the palm wine tapper that he was on the land rejecting the 7th defendant’s assertion that 4 he had been sick for about a year. That he had been involved in the issue since it started and that once the 7th defendant took a shell to hit the plaintiff’s brother during an altercation. P.W.1 is Srem Wilson Attah, the palm wine tapper of Aveme Danyigba. He deposed in his witness statement that the plaintiff engaged him to fell and tap some palm trees in the plantation. That bthe land belonged to the plaintiff and his siblings. He fell about 151 trees and had 72 kegs of palm wine. He was in the process of tapping more palm wine when the defendants warned him to stop the work forthwith, and also caused his arrest the same day. He was detained at the police station for three days. Later the plaintiff informed him that the defendants destroyed all the palm trees and the containers containing the palm wine. That the defendants threatened that if he dared go to the land again something would happen to him. He therefore did not go onto the land to continue with the tapping of the wine. Due to that the palms were left at the mercy of the weather and they got deteriorated. Everything was lost including the money spent to fell the palms and the kegs of palm wine due to the conduct of the defendants. The the conduct of the defendants has been a great financial loss to the plaintiff and his sibling since that was their source of livelihood. That the plaintiffs now rely on friends for their sustenance. In cross –examination the said after he finished felling the palm trees a messenger called him before his [witness] father to warn him to stop the work. He was asked to see one Mawusi Gablew and sent him to Fiatepenorla who then authorised him to continue with the work. He had then felled one hundred and twenty [120] palm trees and when the chief authorised him to continue he added thirty-one trees. Then the 2nd, 3rd and the 6th defendants caused his arrest. He rejected the assertion that he felled only 61 palm trees and also stated that he was not aware anyone went to count the trees. The witness rejected the assertion that the Police Commander suggested that both parties should 5 delegate people to tap the palm. Rather the 5th defendant asked if there should not be an injunction on the work, but he opposed to it saying the plaintiff instructed him to do the work and so he saw no reason to stop him. Later the matter was taken to court. He rejected the 1st defendant’s assertion that he stopped him from working on the palm trees. He said Togbe Dzaha the 5th defendant was one of those who restrained him from working on the felled palm trees. To the 2nd defendant’s questions the witness said he felled 151 palm trees. He said he was not invited along to count the palm trees in the bush. They only returned to tell him they counted 61 palm trees. He rejected the assertion that he used a week to tap the palm. He said he never said he distilled the wine before his arrest. He said the day he began and set the fire he was arrested, rejecting the assertion that he had stated in his witness statement that he had collected 8 kegs of palm wine and distilled 72 kegs of Akpeteshie and those were destroyed. The 3rd defendant put to the witness that he the 3rd defendant was the first person to send the 1st defendant to caution him not to continue with the work but he failed to comply. The witness said he was working on the palm when the caution came then he went to see Gasianu who sent him to Fiatepenorla who then gave him the go-ahead to continue with the tapping of the palms. That even when he mentioned it at the police station the 5th defendant was surprised and questioned the rest of the defendants. Asked whatbthe name of the said Fiatenorla was the witness mentioned one Torgbe Bansah and said he was the one he was sent to. The 3rd defendant put to the witness that he was arrested because of his disobedience to stop the work he was doing for plaintiff. The witness rejected that and said he was authorised by Torgbe Bansah to continue with the work. The witness said after his arrest at the police station Togbe Kotoku injuncted him from stepping foot on the land. Then in court the judge directed the plaintiff to take a civil action against defendants. 6 To the 4th defendant’s questions the witness admitted that the 4th defendant told him to halt the work he was doing their family head, but one Mawusi Gabienu told him to continue in the presence of the said elder. In the process he was arrested but the 4th defendant was not present there. The witness admitted that after the meeting with the 4th defendant, the 4th defendant has not been on the land but he was part of the persons who warned him in the presence of his [witness] father. The 5th defendant put to the witness that the land on which the palms were cultivated belonged to Togbe Kotoku Gbaha which he handed to Sawli. The witness admitted that he was told Togbe Kotoku Dzahe owned the land but gave it to the Amanfrom people but to Sawli he was not aware of it. The witness said he was not in a position to tell whether or not the 5th defendant owns the land, all he knew was that he caused his arrest. That at their meeting all he heard was the warning not to step onto the disputed land. And so he did not go on to the land, leaving the felled palm to rot. To the 6th defendant’s questions the witness said 6th defendant was not of the delegated but he led the police for his arrest. The 6th defendant put to the witness that at the time of the witness’s arrest he the 6th defendant was an Assembly member and Council member so the Commander told him and the C.I.D. officer to head the team. The witness said he was not in the position to dispute that but he the 6th and the other defendants live in the same house, even though the 6th defendant was one of those who planted seedlings for the plaintiff. Then7th defendant had no questions for the witness. THE DEFENDANT’S CASE. 7 The 1st defendant elected to testify for all the defendants. The defendants per the witness statement of the 1st defendant testified that he is the head of Sowli Family of Aveme Amanfrom. That the disputed land originated from the Armah family of Awurokosi. That a woman by name Akuwa Akoto came from Adaklu and stayed with Togbe Agbakini as a stranger. The said woman got married to Togbe KotokuDzeha , the then Chief of Aveme Aworokosi. That the woman did not have children of her own but helped her husband the chief to cater for all his children, and for that the chief gifted the vast land as his gratitude. After the death of the woman her father Togbe Agbakini enquired of the chief as to the use of the land gifted to the woman. The chief said the land would be inherited by her family and so the land should belong to Agbakini/Sowli and Kotoku Dzeha family of Aveme Amanfrom and Aworokosi respectively but then the Agbakini/Sowli family will be the landlord. It was then agreed that both families could cultivate portions of the land for food stuff but not palm plantation and for that matter any cash crop, or harvest palm or any economic tree on the land because the land is already blessed with economic trees. That, members could harvest the palm fruits but not uproot the palm without the family’s authorisation. That the plaintiff without the knowledge of the head of family felled Odum tree and twenty – three teak trees which he as the head of family in consultation with the principal members of the family seized from the plaintiff and sold same. That the plaintiff also tapped two hundred palm trees for palm wine without accounting for them to the family despite the demand for him to account. That the plaintiff planted sixty-one palm seedlings and when they matured the plaintiff felled them again to tap. The 1st defendant stated that he seized the uprooted palms but the tapper went behind him to tap the palms. He therefore reported the tapper to the police. That the police went to the bush to count the palms and found sixty-one not a hundred and fifty-one as claimed by the plaintiff. The statement continued that the police invited both parties and suggested that each party nominate one person for the tapping of the palm wine for accountability sake but the plaintiff refused and all the 61 8 palms got rotten on the ground. The defendant reiterated that the land in dispute belongs to the defendants’ family and not a personal property of the plaintiff. That the plaintiffs are trying to take absolute control of the family land and have sacked majority of family members from farming on the land which land belongs to the Agbakini/Sowli family and not Dompreh Family. In cross-examination the 1st defendant stated that he did not cause destruction to the palm trees but that he said he knew about 61 palm trees which were counted not 151. He was not in the bush to count the trees. The plaintiff put to the defendant that 151 palm trees were destroyed. The defendant rejected that and said the plaintiff earlier on uprooted 51 palms and the tapper later uprooted 10, making 61. The defendant admitted sending people on the land to count the palm trees when he had a message that the plaintiff was uprooting the palm trees and that because the palms were on his family land. The plaintiff asked the defendant why he should wait for him to engage labourers and incur other cost to cultivate the palms and only question him when the palms are mature and being felled. The defendant’s answer was that the land is a family land and that the plaintiff needed permission to undertake a commercial farming. And it’s because the land is a family land that was why he seized the teak the plaintiff fell in his capacity as head of family of the Sowli family installed by the descendants of Togbe Kotoku Dzeha. And that no one takes anything from the land without his consent. The defendant denied causing the plaintiff’s arrest. He admitted causing the arrest of the plaintiff’s tenant. He said when the commander suggested that the parties delegate persons to tap the palm the plaintiff refused and that was why the palms got spoilt on the land. D.W.1 is Simon Asuma of Aveme Amanfrom aged 73 years. His testimony is that the land in dispute called Siigbe or Akuwa Akoto originally belonged to the Ama Family of Aveme Awurokosi. That the land was given to a woman from Adaklu called Akuwa Akoto. The woman stayed Togbe Agbakini of Sowli family and later got married to the 9 chief of Aveme Awurokosi, and due to the woman’s faithfulness, dedication and hard work, even though she was barren the chief gifted the woman this disputed land in issue in appreciation. After the death of the woman the Agbakini and the Kotoku families agreed to inherit the land together but then Sowli family would exercise ownership over the land. That the two families also agreed that members could cultivate food crops but not cash crops since the land was full of palm trees and other economic trees. He concluded his statement by saying that the land in dispute is the property of the defendants’ family. In cross –examination the witness said he is a member of the family and knows that the plaintiff had no palms which had been destroyed. The plaintiff put to the witness that he planted palms some time back and the witness destroyed same. The witness answered that the defendant does not own the disputed land to cultivate palms. The plaintiff put to the witness that he is not a member of the Sowli family to know what pertains there. The witness answered that his mother belongs to the Sowli family and was one time a head of family and so he knows a lot about the disputed land. That when the plaintiff’s brother Johannes Dompreh was made a head of the family the plaintiff was deputising for him and after his death the plaintiff continued to conduct himself as such when the family had not appointed him but had appointed another family member as a head of family. He stated that the 1st defendant is the head of the Sowli family currently. That at the meeting to appoint the 1st defendant as head of family the plaintiffs’ line abstained from it even though they were invited to attend. He rejected the assertion that the 1st defendant’s father was adopted into the Sowli family. The witness described the land in dispute as sharing boundaries with the property of Togbe Kotoku Dzeha and Togbe Agbesiah as well as the forest reserve along the maintain range. The witness rejected the assertion that the defendants destroyed the plaintiff’s 151 palm trees and for which he was seeking damages. He said it was the District Commander who ordered the plaintiff not to tap the palms it was not the 10 defendant for them to pay them. Moreover the plaintiff planted the palms without the consent of the head of the family then. The defendants’ second witness is Lebene Dzandu of Aveme Amanfrom, aged 77 years. He testified that he knows the parties very well. Per the witness statement of the witness the disputed land known and called Akuwa Akokto is the property enjoyed by three families namely; Dzandu , Sowli and Amah families of Aveme Amanfrom and Aworokosi. That Akuwa Akoto was a stranger who came to Aveme Amanfrom and stayed with Togbe Agbakini and got married to Togbe Kotoku Dzeha, chief of Aveme Aworokosi. That Maame Akua AKOTO did not have children of her own but took care of the children of Togbe Kotoku with dedication and for which the chief appreciated her by the gift of the land in issue to the woman. Hence the name of the track of land made after Auwa Akoto. After the death of Akuwa Akoto Togbe Agbakini went to see Togb e Dzeha as to who would inherit the land gifted to Akuwa Akoto. That the chief said Akoo was the daughter of Togbe Agbakini was the father of the late Akoto and as such the family she belonged would inherit her but the families of Agbakini/Sowli and Ogbe Dzeha would all enjoy the land with Agbakini/Sowli family being the landlord. That it was also agreed that members would plant only food crops because the land was filled by nature with palm and other economic trees. The statement concluded that the land in issue is not a personal property of the plaintiff but that a family property of the defendant’s family. In cross-examination the witness said nobody cultivated the palm trees on the land, that they were naturally grown on the land. He also did not know that any palms had been uprooted on the disputed land. He said if the defendant had told the court that the plaintiff cultivated palm on the disputed land that would be incorrect. He was also not aware of the seizure of any palm trees. The plaintiff put to the witness that he bought 11 palm seedlings to cultivate on the disputed land. The witness denied any knowledge of that. The plaintiff then tendered the receipt on the seedlings through the witness. The defendant objected to its tendering through the witness but the court admitted same and it was marked Exhibit ‘’A’’. In further cross –examination the witness said the 1st defendant is the head of family and he alone knew the number of palm trees he destroyed. He the witness was not present with the head of family on the land, it is the 1st defendant who told him he went to destroy some palm trees. In answering questions by the court the witness said all the parties belong to the same family as well as himself. That the plaintiff and his brother had been cultivating food crops on the land since the middle 1975. He was not aware of the planting of improved palm seedlings on the land by the plaintiff. In re –examination the witness said the 1st defendant told the members of the family not to cultivate cash crops on the family land long before he became the head of family. That the palm trees the 1st defendant went to uproot were the naturally grown ones. With the second witness’s evidence the defendants closed their case. EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE APPLICATION OF LAW. In analysing the evidence I find as a fact that the parties belong to the same family and the land on which the plaintiff cultivated the palms was a family land. This is because in an answer to the plaintiff’s questions the 1st defendant stated that the land is a family 12 property and he is the family head, and the plaintiff could not take from the land without permission. I also find as a fact that the palms were destroyed by and at the instance of the 1st defendant. The question is, does the plaintiff as a family member have the right to cultivate cash crops on the family land without the consent of the family? And does the family have the right to destroy palms cultivated and grown to maturity by a family member? Professor A.K.P. Kludze in his Ewe Law of Property states a page 181 states that ‘’In Ewe law property built on family property does not thereby become family property. A house built on family land as well as a farm cultivated on family land are self – acquired properties of the builder or the farmer respectively, even though they are members of the family in which the paramount title to the land is vested. The land itself remains family land, but the house or the farm is a self- acquired property of the person who erected or cultivated it’’. The good professor expatiated on the customary law with a judicial customary law in the case of Owoo V. Owoo [1945] 11 W.A.C.A. 81, 86 that such a builder or farmer has only a life interest in the building or the farm. See also Ansah V. Sackey [1958] 3 W.A.L.R. 325, Tetteh V, Anang [11 Dec, 1957 Unreported. According to the evidence of D.W.2 the plaintiff has been on the land cultivating same since 1975 and it was in the sight of all the family members. And to wait for palms that take about four years to mature and some more years to harvest its fruits before they are tap for palm wine and then the defendants go to destroy them is in bad faith. According to D.W.2 the 1st defendant told the family members not to cultivate cash crops on the land long before he became a family head. And so in which capacity did the 1st defendant give such instructions or orders? 13 Ollenu in his Principles of Customary Land Law in Ghana states at page 142 that every member of the family has an inherent right to be granted a portion of the vacant family land for farming or for building; in the case of farming or agricultural land he could occupy any portion of such land upon a presumed grant without application to the head and elders of the family but in the case of building or urban land, he could only occupy upon actual grant. Per the case law and the opinion of the eminent jurists the plaintiff did not require an actual grant or permission of the family to cultivate the palms on the family land. He could do so as of right as a member of the family. If the family did not want the plaintiff to cultivate palms or if they told the plaintiff to stop cultivating palms on the family land for a good reason the family could have taken a legal steps to prevent the plaintiff instead of the harassment meted out to the plaintiff. The plaintiff seeks damages for 151 palm trees that he says the defendants caused damage to. The 1st defendant per his witness statement stated that ceased 61 palm trees the plaintiff’s tapper fell and that he was not responsible for the damage caused to the trees because the plaintiff failed to agree to the police suggestion to allow another person to join the tapper to do the work. Did the family get someone to help the plaintiff maintain the palm plantation when he was cultivating the land? Why do they want to reap from where they did not plant. According to the D.W.2 the 1st defendant told him he went to the plaintiff’s farm to destroy some palm trees, he the witness was not present in the farm. Then in re- examination the witness said the 1st defendant told him the palms he destroyed were naturally grown on land and they were 61. I do not believe that assertion that the palms the 1st defendant caused damage to were naturally gown on the land when D.W.1 had admitted that the plaintiff planted palm seedlings on the land. Now how many palm trees were damaged at the instance of the 1st defendant? 14 The 1st defendant claims there were sixty-one [61] palm trees, the tapper states otherwise. The 1st defendant claims the police went on the land to count the number of the palm trees but there was not police extract in support of that assertion. Also the tapper, that is, P.W.1 said he was not invited to go along with the police to the land to count the palm trees so how can that 61 palm trees be verified? P.W.1 stated that he fell about a hundred and fifty [151] palm trees and started harvesting the wine and had taken about 72 kegs of palm wine. Then the defendants went to the farm and ordered him to stop work and also caused his arrest. The plaintiff in cross- examining the second witness for the defendant with the permission of the court tendered through the witness a receipt on one hundred and twenty- five palm seedlings acquired from Forum Agric. Component on the 28th of July, 2003 as evidence of improved palm seedlings bought and cultivated on the plaintiff’s farm. Even though the receipt bears the name of Christian Dompreh but not the Peter Dompreh, the evidence on record discloses that the Domprehs have been cultivating this portion of the family land. Of that 125 the tapper said he felled 151 and was in the process of preparing them for the palm wine. In civil actions, a burden is placed on a party to establish a requisite belief concerning a fact in the mind of the Tribunal of fact or the court, and to establish the existence or non- existence of the fact by the preponderance of the probabilities. Section 12 of the Evidence Act explains preponderance of probabilities to mean that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the Tribunal of fact or the Court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence. See Serwah V. Kesse [1960] G.L.R. 227 @ 228, SC. The plaintiff has established that he and his sibling from the Sowli family have been in occupation of the land in issue cultivating same. They cultivated the palms in the sight of all family members. They cannot therefore be prevented from enjoying the fruits of their labour. If the law is that a family member can build or farm on a family land and have a 15 life interest in the land, then the plaintiff is equally entitled to cultivate on the family land and to enjoy it for life, irrespective of the crop that is cultivated. The 1st defendant admits that he ordered the arrest of the plaintiff’s tapper but denied causing damage to any of the palm trees. But according to D.W.2 the 1st defendant told him he went to the plaintiff’s farm and destroyed 61 felled palm trees. This piece of evidence is a testament enough that the 1st defendant caused damage to the plaintiff’s felled palm trees, and also caused the arrest of the tapper preventing him to prepare the palms for the wine among other forms of harassment. In the case of Atadi V. Ladzekpo [1981] G.L.R. 218, CA, it was held that whenever the testimony of a party on a critical issue is in conflict with the testimony of his own witness on that issue, it is not open to the trial court to gloss over such a conflict and make a specific finding on that issue in favour of the party whose case contained the conflicting evidence. The 1st defendant’s action is in bad faith and must compensate the plaintiff for the loss incurred as a result of the damage caused to the palm trees. The plaintiff in his writ of summons just sought compensation without quoting any figure but in his witness statement he stated Gh¢50.000.00. The plaintiff did not prove to the court that indeed the felled palm trees were a hundred and fifty-one. In the celebrated case of Majolagbe V. Larbi [1959] it was held that when a party makes an averment in his pleadings which is capable of proof in a positive way and the averment is denied, that averment cannot be sufficiently proved by just mounting the witness box and reciting the averment on oath without adducing some corroborative evidence. The plaintiff and his witness just repeated the averment that the defendants damaged or caused the damage of the palm trees without even inviting the court to the locus to inspect the physical counting of the trees or counting same under the supervision of a disinterested person to support the claim that the defendants indeed caused damage to 151 felled palm trees. I am therefore at liberty to award any amount as 16 compensation to the plaintiff in order to do substantial justice to the parties and to prevent multiplicity of suits. See: Hannah Assi V. Gihoc Refrigeration & Households Products Ltd [No. 2] [2007 -2008] 1 SCGLR 16. On that basis I award compensation for seventy-six [76] palm trees. My research into the cost of one matured palm tree and the cost of felling same were Gh¢25.00 and 15.00 respectively. That will therefore amount to Hh¢3,040.00. Then for the cost of preparing the palm for the wine and for the loss of income from the lost wine I award a cost of Gh¢4,000.00.that brings the total compensation to Gh¢7,040.00. Cost of Gh¢5,000.00 is awarded against the 1st defendant. No cost is awarded for the other defendants. ……….………SGD……………… H/W COMFORT ASAMOAH SARPONG DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 17