EMMANUEL NARTER TEYE v. BROTHER KWASI AND BROTHER EVANS

The Plaintiff herein commenced this action claiming the following against the

Defendants:

a. GH¢15,000.00 being cost of land Defendants sold to Plaintiff at Sakyikrom in

Nsawam which land Plaintiff later found out that same has does not belong to

Defendants but Defendants have refund to refund the said sum since 2017

despite several demands.

b. GH¢1,000.00 being cost of preparation of Deed of Conveyance to cover the sale

transaction.

c. Interest and Cost.

The Defendants had notice of the pending Suit. The 1st Defendant did not file any

process and the 2nd Defendant although he filed his Statement of Defence and Witness

Statement, he chose not to attend the trial to have his Witness Statement adopted. The

Court therefore proceeded under Order 25 of the District Court Rules, 2009(C.I 59), to

hear the matter without the Defendant.

Order 25 r 1(2) (a) provides;

“Where an action is called for trial and a party fails to attend, the trial magistrate may where

the Plaintiff attends and the Defendant fails to attend, dismiss the counterclaim if any and

allow the Plaintiff to prove the claim”

In Ankumah v City Investment Co Ltd [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 1064, Baffoe Bonnie JSC

held at page 1076 as follows;

“A Court is entitled to give judgment in default as in the instant case, if the party fails to

appear after notice of the proceedings has been given to him. For then, it would be justifiable to

assume that he does not wish to be heard.”

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

It is the case of the Plaintiff that somewhere in July 2018, he was introduced to the 1st

Defendant by the 2nd defendant as a land owner who wanted to sell his parcel of land

at Sakyikrom. Plaintiff continued that he expressed interest and paid an initial

amount of GH¢11,000.00 to the 1st Defendant and the remaining by instalment

through the 2nd Defendant being the cost of the land after he had inspected the land

and further made payment of GH¢1,000.00 for the cost of the land documents.

Plaintiff asserts that, he went into possession of the land by developing same but was

stopped by someone claiming to be the owner of the land and upon investigations,

revealed that the land does not belong to the defendants and also the Defendants who

took the land documents for signing could not be found and every effort to get in

touch with the Defendants have been futile. The Plaintiff therefore prayed the Court

to grant the reliefs endorsed on his Writ of Summons. The Plaintiff closed his case

w