Tei Vrs Amoani [2022] GHADC 135 (4 November 2022)

IN THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT HELD AT N. A. M. A. NSAWAM ON FRIDAY, 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 BEFORE HER WORSHIP SARAH NYARKOA NKANSAH SUIT NO. A2/135/22 ESTHER TEI ------- PLAINTIFF VRS. NANA AMOANI ------- DEFENDANT PARTIES: ABSENT. NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION. JUDGEMENT The Plaintiff claims against the defendant is for the following: a. Payment of an amount of GH¢1,530.00 being the present market value of 8 fowl and financial assistance Plaintiff gave Defendant but refuse payment. b. Interest on cash assistance of GH¢970.00 given to Defendant five years ago. c. Cost Page 1 of 5 Despite having notice of the pending suit, the Defendant who had been duly served yet chose to absent himself without any valid excuse to the court. In view of same the court therefore proceeded under Order 25 of the District Court Rules, 2009(C. I 59), to hear the matter in the absence of 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 Plaintiff’s case that about 3 years ago, she financially assisted the Defendant with GH¢970.00 cash and GH¢300.00 worth of chicken. The Plaintiff continued that the Defendant agreed to pay the Page 2 of 5 GH¢970.00 cash by May 2017 and GH¢300.00 for the chicken by January 2018 but has refused to pay up upon several demands. The Plaintiff closed her case without calling any witness. In the circumstance, the issue that falls for determination is: i. Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of GH¢1,530.00 from Defendant. ii. Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to interest on GH¢970.00 As already noted, Plaintiff was discharged without being cross- examined by the Defendant since the Defendant was absent despite having been duly served with the writ of summons. 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. The Plaintiff has led evidence to establish that he lent an amount of GH¢970.00 to Defendant which sum the Defendant was to repay by Page 3 of 5 May 2017. In addition to this, the Plaintiff gave Chickens worth GH¢300.00 to the Defendant which sum the defendant was to repay by January 2018. Per the evidence adduced so far the Defendant has failed to repay both sums amounting to a total of GH¢1,270.00. The Plaintiff is per her reliefs claiming GH¢1,530.00. This according to her is the present value of the chicken he gave to Defendant in 2017. The Court resolves the issues by stating that the Plaintiff is entitled to the amount owed and not the present market value. The Plaintiff may rather be entitled to interest on the sum from the date it became due and owing till date of final payment. In the circumstance, I hold that, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover a total of GH¢1,270.00 with interest. 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’. Page 4 of 5 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. On the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial in the present case, I hereby enter judgement in favour of the Plaintiff against Defendant for the following reliefs; i. Recovery of the sum of GH¢1,270.00 from the Defendant. ii. Interest on the sum of GH¢1,270.00 at the commercial bank rate from January, 2018 to date of final payment. iii. Cost of GH¢300.00 awarded against the Defendant. ..………………………………………….. H/W SARAH NYARKOA NKANSAH MAGISTRATE 04/11/2022 Page 5 of 5