Nketia Vrs Nartey [2022] GHADC 129 (25 October 2022)

IN THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT HELD AT NSAWAM N. A. M. A. ON 25TH OCTOBER, 2022 BEFORE HER WORSHIP SARAH NYARKOA NKANSAH MAGISTRATE EMMANUEL KWASI AFFUM NKETIA ------- OF H/NO. HH60 ASANTE AKURA NSAWAM SUIT NO. A2/52/22 PLAINTIFF VRS ERIC NARTEY OF NSUMIA ------- DEFENDANT PARTIES: PLAINTIFF PRESENT. DEFENDANT ABSENT. NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION JUDGEMENT The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant cash the sum of GH¢10,000.00 as follows: a. GH¢10,000.00 being financial assistant Defendant received from Plaintiff but has refused to pay same since October, 2018. b. Interest on the said amount from October, 2020 to date of judgment. c. Cost PLAINTIFF’S CASE Page 1 of 3 It is the Plaintiff’s case that, somewhere in October 2018, he financially assisted the Defendant with an amount of GH¢10,000.00 to help purchase a car, but the Defendant has since refused to pay back the money despite all efforts employed. The Plaintiff mentioned that, although the Defendant promised to pay the money in a few months’ time, it is clear that the Defendant will not pay the money and unless compelled by the Court to pay the money with interest from October, 2020 to date of final payment. The Plaintiff closed his case without calling any witness. In the circumstance, the issue that falls for determination is: Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of GH¢10,000.00 from Defendant. Per Plaintiff’s evidence led so far, the Court has been informed that, the Defendant owes the Plaintiff an amount of GH¢10,000.00 which the Defendant has willfully refused to settle despite several demands from him. As already noted, the Plaintiff was discharged without being cross-examined by the Defendant because the Defendant was absent despite having notice of the proceedings. In Quagraine v. Adams [1981] GLR 599, it was held that, in a situation where a witness testifies and his opponent fails to cross-examine him, the Court may consider the witness’s testimony as admitted by his opponent. In tandem with the position of the law, the Court hereby accepts the uncontroverted evidence adduced by the Plaintiff at the trial. In the case of Nartey v. Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Press Ltd [1987-1988] 2GLR pg 314 Adade JSC stated that: “A person who comes to Court, no matter what the claim is, must be able to make a good case for the Court to consider, otherwise he must fail.” Sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) provides that the burden of proof on a party in a civil suit should be on a balance of probabilities. Page 2 of 3 I hold that, the Plaintiff has made a good case for the Court to consider. From the totality of the evidence, I find that, Plaintiff has been able to prove his claim by preponderance of probabilities. I accordingly enter judgment in favour of the Plaintiff for the following reliefs: a. Recovery of the sum of GH¢10,000.00 from the Defendant. b. Interest on the sum of GH₵10,000.00 at the commercial bank rate from October, 2020 to date of final payment. c. Cost of GH¢500.00 awarded against the Defendant. (SGD) H/W SARAH NYARKOA NKANSAH MAGISTRATE 25/10/ 2022 Page 3 of 3