ISAAC JACKSON AMOAH v. KWAKU DUKU, OKO AGYEI AND KWABENA AFRIM

The plaintiff filed a writ seeking the following reliefs;

1. Recovery of cash jointly and severally from defendants the sum of Two Thousand

Six Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH₵2,600.00) being cost plaintiff incurred on a land 1st

defendant granted to plaintiff to cultivate cocoa on Abunu basis. With breakdown as

follows;

a. Cost of lease of land GH₵900.00 plus GH₵50.00 drinks

b. Cost of labor GH₵1,000.00 plus cost of feeding GH₵400.00

c. Transportation cost GH₵200.00

d. Cost of maize seeds GH₵50.00

2. Two thousand five hundred Ghana Cedis (GH₵2,500.00) as Damages.

The case of the plaintiff is that, he agreed with the first defendant herein known as D1 that the

plaintiff will farm on a piece of land belonging to D1. The plaintiff in his evidence in chief

stated that he paid GH₵900.00. D1 during cross examination admitted that he received

GH₵900.00 from the plaintiff in respect of their agreement for the plaintiff to farm on his land.

D1 then accepted to refund the GH₵900.00 to the plaintiff but insisted he was not liable to the

rest of the money.

The second and third defendants herein known as D2 and D3 respectively contended that they

were not liable to pay money to the plaintiff. They both argued that the land D1 permitted the

plaintiff to farm on belonged to them. So D1 had no right to grant permission to the plaintiff to

farm thereon. With this D1 conceded that the land belongs to D2 and D3. What this meant was

that D1 by implication accepted he had no right to grant the land to the plaintiff. The inference

therefore is that D2 and D3 cannot be held liable for the money as the plaintiff claimed.

The main issue for consideration and determination is;

Whether or not the plaintiff can recover the money he spent in preparing the land.

The plaintiff brings his case. The plaintiff carries the burden of persuasion. Section 12 of the

Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) requires the plaintiff to prove his case by the preponderance of

the probabilities.

The plaintiff testified that he spent GH₵1,000.00 to clear the land. D1 contested the amount the

plaintiff claimed he spent in clearing the land. It must be noted that the plaintiff only mounted

the witness box and repeated the reliefs. It was only in connection with the cost of labour that

the only witness for the plaintiff stated that they worked for the plaintiff and received

GH₵500.00 as payment. The witness virtually repeated what the plaintiff said. From the

forgoing did the plaintiff prov