Quayson and Another Vrs Dankwa [2022] GHADC 168 (1 December 2022)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, AGONA AHANTA IN THE WESTERN REGION HELD ON THURSDAY THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022. BEFORE HIS WORSHIP SIDNEY BRAIMAH – DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WR/AA/DC/A2/48/2022 1. JEPHTHAN QUAYSON 2. DAVID ANDOH ::: ::: PLAINTIFFS OF BOX 201 TARKWA VRS: JOHN BOAKYE DAKWA ::: ::: DEFENDANT OF BEAHU J U D G M E N T The plaintiffs instituted the present action against the defendant by issuing the instant writ of summons with accompanying affidavit in support to place the suit under the undefended list pursuant to Order 8 rule 1 of District Court Rules, 2009 [C. I 59]. The indorsement on the writ of summons stated as follows: 1. An order directed at defendant jointly and severally to pay plaintiffs an amount of Gh¢6,400.00 being money deducted from plaintiffs’ account for standing as guarantors to the loan agreement. 2. An order directed at defendant to take off name of plaintiffs’ as guarantors to the loan facility the defendant contracted. 3. Interest thereof at the prevailing bank rate from December, 2021 till the date of final payment. Pursuant to Order 8 rule 3 of C. I 59, the defendant filed notice of intention to defend the suit with accompanying affidavit stating the grounds of his defence and served same on the plaintiffs wherein defendant admitted that he owes plaintiffs. Thereafter, defendant pleaded liable to reliefs 1 and 2 when the claims were read and explained to the defendant. The court proceeded to enter judgment against the defendant for the reliefs 1 and 2. This judgment is in respect of relief 3. In their evidence in respect of relief 3; plaintiffs contended that although they guaranteed the loan contracted by defendant from Ahantaman Rural Bank; the defendant failed to defray the outstanding balance with his gratuity and other benefits paid to him when his employment was terminated by Electricity Corporation of Ghana. According to plaintiff; the failure by defendant to defray outstanding debt has resulted in the continuing deductions from their salaries as guarantors and as such that are claiming interest of Gh¢2500.00 from defendant for the hardship and inconvenience caused to them together with Gh¢600.00 as court expenses and Gh¢300.00 as transportation expenses. The plaintiffs prayed to the court to grant their relief. The defendant contested the claim for interest on the ground that the interest had been already charged on the loan he contracted and that he is only liable to refund the amount deducted from the plaintiffs’ salaries. Given the facts not in dispute; the issues raised for determination are the following: 1. Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to interest at the prevailing bank rate from December 2021 until the date of final payment? 2. Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to their reliefs? It is trite law that in civil cases, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving his case on the preponderance of the evidence. The burden on the plaintiff is to adduce cogent evidence that when considered in the light of all the facts, would appear to a reasonable mind, that the facts presented is more probable than not. (See sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 [NRCD 323]). In respect of relief 3; the plaintiffs did not adduce any cogent evidence to move the court to decree interest in favour of the plaintiffs and for it to take effect from December 2021. In that respect; the plaintiffs sought to convince the court that their transportation cost and other legal expenses must be construed as interest. No iota of evidence was adduced to support the claim of interest from December 2021. Again; the plaintiffs did not ‘tender in evidence the contract of guarantee on which they are relying to claim the interest. It is trite that parties to a contract cannot bring into it extraneous provisions or terms which the parties did not contemplate or agreed on. Accordingly, in the absence of any cogent evidence to satisfy the court that the parties agreed that failure by defendant to defray the debt by a stipulated date; the plaintiffs are entitled to claim interest on the outstanding balance due, their clam. In the case of Heloo v Tettey [1992] 2 GLR 112 it was held that a claim for interest should fail if it was merely indorsed of the particulars of claim and no evidence is led at the trial to prove same. I reproduce: “Since the plaintiffs had merely indorsed their writ for 28 per cent interest and did not lead any evidence in support of that claim nor stated in their evidence that they were claiming that interest on the principal, the award could not be justified as a claim made and proved by a party.” Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiffs are not entitled to interest from December 2021. Accordingly, the court dismisses the relief 3 sought by plaintiffs against the defendant. The court awards cost of Gh¢2,000.00 against defendant. Interest thereof shall be at the prevailing bank rate and same take effect from today until the date of final payment. ........................................ H/W SIDNEY BRAIMAH (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) 4