DANIEL ASARE AMOAH vs. DAVID ASHIETEI HANSON AND AYEH HANSON [2016]DLCA4801

Date	2016-04-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO.H1/08/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4801

OFOE J.A

KORBIEH J.A

MENSAH J.A

ADJEI BAFFOUR AWUAH WITH K.D.A BEDIAKO & EPHRAIM ABOAGYE FOR PLAINTIFF /RESPONDENT

FRANK K. FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2016]DLCA4801
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >DANIEL ASARE AMOAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; DAVID ASHIETEI HANSON AND
AYEH HANSON&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; (DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SUIT NO.H1/08/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 21ST APRIL, 2016<o:p></o:p>

FRANK
K. FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>OFOE,J.A:<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal emanating from a judgment of the District Court, Amasaman, which
was reversed on appeal by the High Court. Dissatisfied with the reversal the
plaintiff/appellant is in this court with complains he has identified in his
grounds of appeal.<o:p></o:p>In
this opinion the appellant will be referred to as the plaintiff and the
respondents the defendants.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff’s case is that he bought a 100ft by 70ft plot of land from the Ga,
Gbese Korle Stool in 1995. He tendered exhibit A as evidence of this purchase.
It turned out from the information given him at the Lands Commission that the
land was already registered in the 1st defendant’s name. He therefore met and
negotiated with the 1st defendant who was ready to sell the land to him at an
amount of GH¢370. As evidence of payment of this amount the plaintiff tendered
exhibits C, C1 and C2. His earlier purchase from the Ga Gbese Korle Stool was
for GH¢350. After purchasing the land from the 1st defendant he never had peace
because he was confronted incessantly on the plot by the 2nd defendant who
happened to be the brother of the 1st defendant. He had to pay again GH¢1600.00
to the 2nd defendant. Peace still eluded him he had to report to the Judicial
Committee of the Amasaman District Assembly where he was given the authority to
continue with his structure.&nbsp; That he
attended this Assembly was not disputed. Indeed a staff of the Assembly
testified to this fact and the decision of the Assembly after deliberations.
Presently he is in occupation of part of his building which is at lintel level.<o:p></o:p>The
defendants do not deny these payments to them for the purpose of selling the
land to the plaintiff. Their source of disagreement with the plaintiff is that
the sale price of the land was GH¢15,000 and all the payments mentioned by the
plaintiff were part payment of this amount. They contend that it is rather the
plaintiff who is refusing to pay the balance on the amount.<o:p></o:p>On
reading of the record of appeal the most crucial issue that the trial
magistrate was call upon to determine was whether the plaintiff repurchased the
disputed land from the 1st defendant at GHC370.00? The trial magistrate in a
reasoned judgment found for the plaintiff that he purchased the land from the
1st defendant and paid GH¢370.00 for it. 1st defendant’s contention that this
amount of GH¢370.00 was not payment for the land but gifts the plaintiff gave
to his children anytime the plaintiff visited his house, the trial magistrate
had no difficulty dismissing as untruthful. Untruthful because she found it
unusual for gifts to children to be covered with receipts. She consequently
rejected the contention of the defendants that the agreement for the plot was
GH¢15,000. <o:p></o:p>There
is uncontroverted evidence that the plaintiff paid GH¢1,600 to the 2nd
defendant. This amount which was not evidenced by any receipt, according to the
plaintiff was paid to the 2nd defendant because 2nd defendant kept threatening
him anytime he went unto the land. On one occasion the 2nd defendant even
chased him and a Land Title Registry staff, who was to do official work, off
the land. The 2nd defendant does not deny this payment to him. He contended
that the GH¢1,600 was part payment of the GH¢15,000 which was the price they
agreed to resell the land to the plaintiff. The trial magistrate concluded that
these payments totaling GH¢1,600 was extorted from the plaintiff and not part
of the purchase price of the land. And that the plaintiff had to pay this
amount to have peaceful occupation of the land. She argued that if indeed the
payment was for the land, receipts would have been issued as was done with even
the smaller amount of GH¢370. The land indisputably was for the 1st defendant
and if there was going to be any payment for the land, it would have been made
to the 1st defendant and not the 2nd defendant, she concluded. There was this
date 2009 which the defendants claim was the date they sold the land to the
plaintiff at the alleged agreed amount of GH¢15,000. According to them it was
in 2009 when plaintiff made part payment of GH¢1,600 that he was permitted unto
the land to put up his two rooms. There was evidence however that when the
subcommittee of the Assembly visited the land in 2001 there was already an
uncompleted house on the land. The trial magistrate therefore rejected the
evidence of the defendants that they allowed the plaintiff unto the land in
2009 after he had made part payment of GH¢1,600.<o:p></o:p>In
conclusion she found that the plaintiff had proved his case on the balance of
probabilities and therefore entitled to his claim. She consequently dismissed
the counterclaim of the defendants. Defendants appealed to the High Court. <o:p></o:p>The
High Court judge did not find the trial magistrates judgment supported by the
evidence. His first disagreement with the trial magistrate was her failure to
dismiss the plaintiff’s case based on his own pleadings file before the court.
It is worth </main>