DECKER AND OTHERS VRS. ADZATIA AND ANOTHER (A2/07/19) [2024] GHADC 654 (19 December 2024)

BEFORE HER WORSHIP NANCY A. ADADE SITTING IN THE DISTRICT COURT 1, ADENTAN ON TUESDAY THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. SUIT NO. A2/07/19 1. SHEILA DECKER PLAINTIFFS 2. ISABELLA DECKER 3. SUBIL DECKER ALL OF NO. 26 AUNTIE DRIVE ADENTAN-ACCRA V 1. NEWLOVE MORGAN ADZATIA DEFENDANTS FIFTH HOUSE ON THE RIGHT NARH EUGENE STREET ADJACENT KINGDOM FAMILY CHAPEL ASHIYIE BRANCH, ACCRA 2. MORGAN PROPERTIES LTD BEHIND THE SHELL FILLING STATION ADENTAN TIME: 9:35 AM PARTIES: 1ST PLAINTIFF REPRESENTING 2ND & 3RD PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS: ABSENT COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF: NANA BRAGO BOATENG H/B OF DR. EUGENE ASIAMAH PRESENT JUDGMENT Page 1 of 9 On August 20, 2018, the plaintiffs initiated this action against the defendants jointly and severally, seeking; a) Declaration that the defendant by fraudulent representation, the defendant caused the plaintiff to part with the sum of Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢20,000.00). b) An order for the recovery of the sum of Sixteen Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢16,000.00) being outstanding balance of the purchase price of several parcels of land lying and situate at Dodowa near Finest Oil and Surfina Water respectively. c) Interest on the said sum of Sixteen Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢16,000.00) from June 2015 to date of final payment at the prevailing commercial bank rate of interest. d) Declaration that the defendant breached the agreement between the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant. e) Punitive damages for breach of agreement between the parties. f) Costs including legal fees. The defendants filed their statement of defence on October 18, 2018. Save admissions, they contest the claims made by the plaintiffs. The key facts leading to the presentation of this lawsuit are as follows: the plaintiffs are siblings, and the first defendant serves as the Executive Director of the second defendant company. In 2016, the first plaintiff expressed interest in purchasing a parcel of land and was referred to the second defendant company by a family friend following several discussions with the first defendant. The first plaintiff chose to acquire five plots of land on behalf of herself and the second and third plaintiffs. On March 10, 2016, the plaintiffs finalized the purchase of these plots at Adumanya-Dodowa, located near Finest Oil, and executed a purchase agreement with the second defendant, facilitated by the first defendant. The Page 2 of 9 first plaintiff possesses Exhibits ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ which are indentures made between the plaintiffs and the defendants to support this claim. The first plaintiff states that the second defendant informed her about a site in Dodowa, near Surfina Water Company Limited, which she subsequently decided to purchase for a total of five thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢5,000.00). Despite multiple requests for documentation, no indenture was provided to formalise the ownership of the land. Additionally, the first plaintiff reports that the first defendant insisted she pay the full amount for this transaction, citing a need for funds to contest a parliamentary seat in Adentan. Consequently, the first plaintiff transferred an initial payment of sixteen thousand five hundred Ghana Cedis (GH¢16,500.00) (Exhibit ‘D’) to the second defendant through her mother, for which the second defendant acknowledged receipt. Subsequently, on January 15, 2016, and February 15, 2016, the second and third instalments, amounting to two thousand five hundred Ghana Cedis (GH¢2,500.00) and one thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢1,000.00), were made directly by the first plaintiff into the second defendant’s Prudential Bank account at the Adentan Branch. They continue that subsequently, upon conducting a search at the Land Title Registry, the plaintiffs discovered that each parcel of land that the defendants claimed to sell was registered under different ownership. The plaintiffs allege that the first defendant, through the second defendant, fraudulently misrepresented the ownership status of the lands, leading the plaintiffs to believe that the second defendant was the legitimate owner. Consequently, the first plaintiff parted with a total of twenty thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢20,000.00). Specific instances of this fraudulent misrepresentation are detailed by the first plaintiff, who asserts that the first defendant was aware at all relevant times that the second defendant was not the actual owner of the aforementioned parcels of land. The defendants, with the exception of explicit admissions, contest the assertions made by the plaintiffs. They assert that the plaintiffs did not approach them directly; rather, it was through the goodwill generated during the promotional activities of the 2016 parliamentary primaries for delegates of the Page 3 of 9 NPP that attracted their mother, Rebecca Crentsil, to express interest in purchasing parcels of land in Dodowa. She subsequently indicated her intention to transfer her interest to her children. The defendants further allege that Exhibit 'D' is a forgery and that the issuer is not an authorized officer of the second defendant. Additionally, according to Exhibit 'G', payments were made to the defendants on various dates via bank transactions, with no cash payments recorded. They say that they have refunded the amount in excess of GH¢500 to the plaintiffs. They continued that they requested receipts for the payments made; however, the plaintiffs have not provided receipts for the GH¢16,000, which is why this amount remains outstanding. Consequently, the plaintiffs are not entitled to their claim. ISSUE Whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to their claims. The parties filed their respective witness statements, and the plaintiffs initiated their case through the first plaintiff. Both the defendants and their counsel discontinued their attendance to the court proceedings when the first plaintiff was being cross-examined by counsel for the defendants. Several hearing notices were issued and served on the defendants, both personally and through substituted service; however, they remained absent from court. As a result, the court closed the plaintiffs' case under the presumption that the defendants have waived their right to cross- examination. Additionally, the defendants did not appear in court to tender into evidence their witness statements. Therefore, while it is part of the court records, the court will not assign significant weight to it. It is established that when a party is provided with the opportunity to present evidence supporting their position or defence against the allegations but consciously decides not to utilize that opportunity, the court is warranted in continuing the trial to its conclusion. Subsequently, the court may draw inferences, make conclusions, or reach findings based on the evidence presented throughout the trial. A Page 4 of 9 pertinent case exemplifying this principle is In re West Coast Dyeing Industries Ltd; Adams v Tandoh [1984-86] 2 GLR 561, CA. Based on the aforementioned authority, I will proceed to assess the evidence presented by the plaintiffs. ONUS OF PROOF In the District Court, while pleadings are typically not mandatory, any assertions that are to be supported by documentation must be substantiated accordingly. When a party makes an assertion that can be definitively proven and that assertion is contested, it cannot be sufficiently established solely by testifying and affirming the assertion under oath; additional corroborative evidence must be presented. Please refer to Majolagbe v Larbi [1959] GLR 190 for further clarification. It is therefore the responsibility of the plaintiffs herein to substantiate their claims, as outlined in Sections 10, 11, and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD323). The burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling against that party (Section 11 of NRCD 323). This principle was applied in the case of Faibi v State Hotels Corporation [1968] GLR 471. The defendants have not filed any counterclaim, and therefore are not obligated to disprove the original claim. However, they have alleged forgery and since the issue of forgery concerning Exhibit ‘D’ has been raised, it evokes Section 13 of NRCD 323 which provides that; (1) In a civil or criminal action, the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence since in the instant case, it is alleged that a crime has been committed, that allegation should be proved to the same standard or degree as the onus of proof on the prosecution in ordinary criminal cases that is proof beyond reasonable doubt. See S. A. Brobbey J.S.C. on Essentials of the Ghana Law Page 5 of 9 of Evidence at pgs. 42 and 43. Also, Susu Bamfo v Sintim [2012] 1SCGL 136 holding 3 states; ‘the law regarding forgery or any allegation of a criminal act in civil trial was governed by Section 13(1) of NRCD 323; that section provided that the burden of persuasion required was proof beyond reasonable doubt’ It is therefore the responsibility of the defendant in the instant case to provide beyond reasonable doubt, evidence that the plaintiffs forged Exhibit ‘D’. Conversely, the plaintiff is not required to prove that they did not forge the document. Instead, the plaintiff can rely on the authenticity of the documents, which can only be challenged by evidence of forgery. In the case of Kwabena Mensah v. Kwabena Owusu [2013] 1 SCGLR 341, it was established that when a defendant asserts that a document was forged by the plaintiff, the burden of proof falls on the defendant to substantiate that claim. As stated supra, the defendants alleged forgery of exhibit ‘D’. This is what ensued during cross- examination in the instant case, the counsel for the defendants asked the first plaintiff: Q: Who issued the receipts? A: According to my mum, Humphrey issued it Q: Do you have receipts to show to the court? A: Yes it’s in evidence Q: The receipt was for what amount? A: GH¢16,500.00 but the day I realised the amount he wrote in words was different from the amount he wrote in figures. Q: At what stage did you realised there was a mistake with the receipt? A: The day I received the receipt. Q: You did not return the receipt to the company to correct the mistake. A: I did. I called them to correct the mistake but I do not have the corrected one with me. Q: I put it to you that you never went to the company for the rectification of the anomaly if it is the company that actually gave you this receipt Page 6 of 9 A: I went to them. Q: I put it to you that exhibit D is a complete forgery. A: No that is what was given to me. The plaintiffs deny forging exhibit ‘D’ but the defendants could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that indeed the said exhibit ‘D’ was forged hence based on the presumption of authenticity of documents, I accept exhibit ‘D’ as authentic. Exhibit ‘D’ has in figures GH¢16,500.00 and Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Cedis in words. The courts have consistently ruled that in cases where there is a discrepancy between the amounts stated in words and figures, the amount expressed in words takes precedence. See also Section 70(6) of the Lands Act, 2020 (Act1036). I shall therefore go by this principle and accept the amount in words in the instant case. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant fraudulently misrepresented to them that the second defendant was the lawful owner of the land, leading the plaintiffs to part with GH¢20,000.00. The impact of fraudulent misrepresentation is that it makes the contract voidable. If the plaintiffs can substantiate their claims, they have the right to rescind the contract. To establish a case of fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiffs must demonstrate the following elements: 1. The statement made was false. 2. The statement was made with the intent to deceive. 3. The statement pertained to a material fact. 4. The plaintiffs relied on the statement. 5. The plaintiffs suffered damages as a result. Page 7 of 9 Based on the facts and evidence presented, the defendants made a false statement with the intent to deceive the plaintiffs asserting that the lands at Dodowa and Surfina water belonged to them and it is also evident that the plaintiffs would not have entered into the contract if it had not been for the misrepresentation by the defendants, who were aware at the time that the land they were offering did not belong to them. Consequently, the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for all losses incurred as a result of this contract, as established in Doyle v. Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd. [1969] 2 QB 158. On the whole, the court is satisfied with the evidence on record, having found that the plaintiffs have sufficiently proven their case on the preponderance of probabilities. I hereby enter judgment in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants: 1. The defendant is liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, which caused the plaintiffs to part with Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢20,000.00). 2. The plaintiffs shall recover from the defendants the outstanding balance of Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH¢15,500.) from the purchase of parcels of land at Dodowa and Surfina Water respectively. 3. Interest on the amount specified in (2) above shall be awarded at the prevailing commercial bank rate from June 2015 until the date of final payment. 4. General damages of Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢10,000.00) for losses incurred as a result of this agreement is awarded against the defendants. 5. Costs amounting to Five Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢5,000.00) is also awarded against the defendants (SGD) Page 8 of 9 H/W NANCY A. ADADE MAGISTRATE Page 9 of 9