Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff on the 10/01/23 was issued out of the Registry of this Court, a writ of civil
summons claiming an amount of Gh¢40,000 from the defendant.
To this relief the 1st defendant admitted Gh¢3,100.00 out of the GH¢40,000. But the
nd defendant denied liability.
In the interest of justice, the panties were given a hearing.
THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE
Beside himself, the plaintiff, the plaintiff called one witness in support of his case.
According to the plaintiff in the year 2012 the 1st defendant sold a 7 arage land at
the cost of Gh¢3100 to he and his father. Plaintiff stated that upon its acquisition
they handed over same to his brother Ibrahim Issaka to work on but 4 months after
he had cultivated crops on the land, a nephew to the 1st defendant threatened Ibrahim
to give vacant possession else he would kill him so he left the land.
Plaintiff stated that he went and lodged a complaint to the chief of the area but the
st defendant failed to avail himself and was nowhere to be found until he resurfaced
recently so he was arrested but later instituted the instant action.
The plaintiff under cross examination admitted that a year after he had bought the
land the 1st defendant’s brother refunded GH¢3,000.00 to him but he rejected the
money.
He admitted he had never met the 2nd defendant before but maintained that he spoke
to her on phone.
PW1. Issaka Ibrahim’s evidence was on all fours with the evidence of the plaintiff
PW1 admitted under cross examination that the 1st defendant’s brother refunded the
money to him but he rejected it because he was only a caretaker. He admitted that
the 2
nd defendant and her brothers protested about the sale of the land. Suffice it to
say that the plaintiff closed his case after the evidence of PW1.
THE DEFENDANT’S CASE
The 1st defendant testified and called two witnesses.
The evidence of the 1st defendant was that he sold a land to the plaintiff about 9 years
ago but his brother said the price was on a lower side so he refunded Gh¢3000.00 to
the plaintiff but he rejected it and recently instituted the instant action. The
defendant said he lives In Kumasi which the plaintiff was aware so he did not go
into hiding.
st defendant admitted that the 2nd defendant was called on phone and she gave her
consent to the transaction. He maintained that 2nd defendant authorized their head of
family to sign on her behalf.
DW1 Kwabena Asante’s evidence was that the land in issue belongs to he and his