APAU SAMUEL v. TAASAH SALIFU

The Plaintiff has initiated this action against the Defendant under Order 2, rule 3 (6) of

the District Court Rules, 2009, C I. 59, for the following reliefs:

1. Recovery of an amount of twenty five thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵25,000.00) in

general damages for winning gravel from the Plaintiff’s land at Dapaa Amanta

somewhere in the year 2017.

2. Cost.

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER OF CLAIM

Plaintiff is a farmer resident at Dapaa Amanta whilst the defendant is a contractor

residing at Dodi Akum. The Plaintiff states that somewhere in the year 2017, the

defendant was awarded a road construction contract from Dapaa Junction to Dodo

Amanfrom by the Kadjebi District Assembly. He states that after winning the contract,

the defendant was brought to him (Plaintiff) at Dapaa Amanta by one Alhaji Kofi Peni to

allow the defendant to win gravel from his (Plaintiff’s) land. So, he agreed and asked the defendant to use his grader to level the back of his (Plaintiff’s) and create a gutter in the

front of the house. He added that before the Defendant came to him (Plaintiff), he had

won some quantity of gravel on the land. And heaped same on another portion of the

land. The defendant thereafter won the gravel on the land and even collected the heaped

gravel on the land which he used to complete the construction of the road since the year

2019. But, he, (defendant) has refused or failed to create the gutter in front of the

Plaintiff’s house as well as leveling the back yard of the house, as they had agreed upon.

He (Plaintiff) concluded that all efforts to let the Defendant fulfill that part of the

agreement between them cannot succeed, hence this action to seek redress.

The parties appeared before the court on the 14th day of April 2021, and the plea of the

Defendant was taken. He pleaded not liable to the reliefs of the Plaintiff.

The Court then ordered the parties to file their witnesses’ statements and any relevant

document (s) in their possession in relation to the subject matter before the next

adjourned date.

On the face of the records the parties complied with the orders of the court to file their

witnesses’ statements, but none of them filed any document in relation to the land or the

alleged contract between them.

The defendant became evasive by not being regular before the court till on the 23rd day

of November, 2021, when they both appeared and the Plaintiff gave his evidence in chief

on oath. The Defendant was allowed to cross examin