Inusah and Another Vrs Johnson [2022] GHADC 166 (25 October 2022)

IN THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT HELD AT N. A. M. A. NSAWAM ON 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022 BEFORE HER WORSHIP SARAH NYARKOA NKANSAH SUIT NO. A2/113/22 ------- PLAINTIFF 1. IBRAHIM INUSAH 2. SAMUEL AMOH NOKA OF NSAWAM VRS BROTHER JOHNSON ------- DEFENDANT OF TEMA PARTIES: ABSENT. NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION JUDGEMENT The Plaintiffs claims against the defendant as follows: a. Cash the sum of GH¢18,500.00 being balance cost of 15 foreign doors defendant bought from Plaintiff but has failed to do so despite repeated demands since 8th May, 2022. b. GH¢1,500.00 being cost of transportation to demand the said sum from Noka to Tema several occasions. c. Interest and Cost. 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 Page 1 of 4 Court 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.” PLAINTIFFS CASE The 1st Plaintiff gave evidence on behalf of both Plaintiffs saying that, on the 8th May, 2022, he sold 15 doors to the Defendant costing GH¢22,500. 1st Plaintiff added that, the Defendant later paid GH¢4000.00 leaving a balance of GH¢18,500.00 outstanding and owing in spite of several demands made on Defendant to pay. In the circumstance the issue that falls for determination is; Whether or not the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the sum of GH¢18,500.00 from the Defendant. In the case of Nartey v. Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Press Ltd [1987-1988] 2GLR pg 314 Adade JSC stated that: Page 2 of 4 ‘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. In the case of Adwubeng v. Domfeh [1996-97] SCGLR 660, the Supreme Court held that in all civil actions, the standard of proof is proof by the preponderance of probabilities, and there is no exception to that rule. The 1st Plaintiff has so far led evidence telling the Court that, the Defendant owes him an amount of GH¢2,500 which the defendant has willfully refused to settle despite several demands made on him. As stated supra, the 1st Plaintiff was discharged without being cross-examined by the Defendant since the Defendant was absent without any excuse to the Court. The position of the law is that, the Court ought to accept the evidence led by a party, where his opponent fails to lead contrary evidence or challenge same under cross- examination by deeming the evidence as having been admitted by his opponent. In Takoradi Flour Mills vrs Samir Faris [2005-06] SCGLR 882, the Supreme Court held that; “where the evidence led by a party is not challenged by his opponent in cross examination and the opponent does not tender evidence to the contrary, the facts deposed to in that evidence are deemed to have been admitted by the opponent and must be accepted by the trial Court.” Page 3 of 4 Considering that the 1st Plaintiff was not cross-examined on his evidence to the Court, I accordingly conclude that the Court has accepted the whole of the evidence of the Plaintiff on record. In Boakye v. Asamoah [1974] 1 GLR 38 @ 45, the Court held that the legal or persuasive burden is borne by the party who would lose the issue if he does not produce sufficient evidence to establish the facts to the requisite standard imposed under section 10 of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323 that is, by a preponderance of probabilities. Although the claim was made jointly by 1st and 2nd Plaintiff’s. the evidence on record supports only 1st Plaintiff’s claim. No evidence whatsoever was led to establish a claim of 2nd Plaintiff against the Defendant herein. In view of same I hold that it is the 1st Plaintiff who was able to prove his case on a preponderance of probabilities. I accordingly enter judgement in favour of the 1st Plaintiff against the Defendant for the following reliefs; i. Recovery of the sum of GH¢18,500 from the Defendant. ii. Interest on the sum of GH¢18,500 at the commercial bank rate from 13th May, 2022 to date of final payment. iii. Cost of GH¢1,000.00 awarded against the Defendant. ..………………………………………….. H/W SARAH NYARKOA NKANSAH MAGISTRATE 25/10/2022 Page 4 of 4