Afrifa v Amponsah Baffour and Another (CC/ASH/CC/C11/11/24) [2025] GHACC 47 (25 April 2025)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JUSTICE, SITTING AT ASHAIMAN ON TUESDAY THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIMON NKETIAH GAGA CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SUIT NO: CC/ASH/CC/C11/11/24 PLAINTIFF SETH OPOKU AFRIFA AGBOGBA -ACCRA VRS: 1. EMERAID ABENA AMPONSAH BAFFOUR CEO OF G-FASH NETWORKS ACHIMOTA 2. DAVID DOUGLAS OF ACCRA DEFENDANTS RULING ON MOTION ON NOTICE FOR JUDGMENT ON ADMISSION On the 25th of September, 2024 the Plaintiff/Applicant herein filed a motion on notice to enter judgment on admission against the 2nd defendant/Respondent. In the accompanying affidavit in support, the applicant deposed that on the 7th of March, 2024, he issued a writ of summons and statement of claim against the 1st and 2nd defendants jointly and severally as follows:- 1. Refund of cash the sum of GH¢50,000.00 being an amount of money the plaintiff deposited with the defendants company to cover his document for his travel abroad. 2. Interest on the said amount from January, 2023 till final date of payment. According to the Applicant, the 2nd defendant in his statement of defence admitted that the 1st defendant contacted him to train some people which included the Applicant to acquire the U. S. Visa to travel abroad. That the 2nd defendant admitted assisting the Applicant and gave the applicant some document to assist him acquire the visa. The applicant said that even though he paid the money in instalment to the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant introduced the 2nd defendant to him as his partner which by conduct the 2nd defendant has not denied it. That is why the 2nd defendant went ahead to train the applicant and issued document to him. However, the documents that the 2nd defendant gave to the Applicant turned out to be fake and were refused by the visa embassy. The applicant therefore prayed the court to order the 2nd defendant to refund the said amount of money to the applicant since both the 1st and 2nd defendants are partners which the 2nd defendant could not deny. THE 2ND DEFENDANT’S CASE On the 4th of October, 2024, the 2nd defendant/Respondent filed an affidavit in opposition. The Respondent in affidavit in opposition, denied all the depositions in the affidavit in support filed by the applicant. He prayed the court to dismiss the application. EVALUATION I believe that this application is brought under order 23 Rule 1 of the CI 47. It states that a party may, in his or her pleadings admit an allegation on a claim made by the opponent. An allegation contained in a pleading may be admitted wholly or partially by a party. The admission so made brings to an end the controversy over that particular issue since by the admission the party making the allegation is relieved of the burden of proving same. SEE the book, “A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO CIVIL PROCEDURE IN GHANA BY SAMUEL MARFUL-SAM (JA AS HE THEN WAS)” PAGE 99. SEE also EWUSIE MENSAH Vrs EWUSIE MENSAH (1992) IGLR 271 It should be noted that the Respondent in his Statement of Defence avers that Plaintiff/Applicant paid the said amount of money to the 1st defendant and not he the 2nd defendant. However, the 2nd defendant/Respondent went further to say that the 1st defendant contacted him to train her clients by using his office to her clients for visa to travel to the USA. According to the 2nd defendant, he went ahead to train them and issued some documents to the plaintiff to facilitate his acquisition of the visa. Thus the plaintiff said the document were rejected by the embassy, however the 2nd defendant said the plaintiff failed to submit them at the embassy. It can be gleaned from the conduct of the 2nd defendant/Respondent that he is a partner to the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant has partially admitted being a partner to the 1st defendant. This is because the 2nd defendant cannot be rendering gratuitous services by using his office to train people to acquire visas. He is a partner to the 1st defendant that is why the 2nd defendant was training people after which he was giving them documents to go for visas. By Order 23 Rule 1 of the CI 47, if a party partially admits or act, judgment on admission can be entered against him. His role in the company is to train the prospective travelers and issue them with documents to apply for visa. This court therefore enters judgement on admission in favour of the Applicant in the sum of GH¢50,000.00. It is Ordered that the 2nd defendant pays interest on the said amount from January 2023 up to the date of judgment at a prevailing commercial bank interest rate. I award cost of GH¢2,000.00 against the 2nd defendant. H/H SIMON NKETIAH GAGA (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) Jt.