Egbenya Vrs Cosmos [2022] GHADC 68 (21 December 2022)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT DAMBAI BEFORE HIS WORSHIP ALHASSAN DRAMANI ESQ. ON WEDNESDAY, 21ST DECEMBER, 2022 SUIT NO. A2/01/2023 PAUL EGBENYA PLAINTIFF VRS LADZEDO COSMOS DEFENDANT PARTIES PRESENT PARTIES UNREPRESENTED JUDGEMENT The Plaintiff herein claims against the Defendant the following reliefs: (a) Recovery of GH¢ 1,500.00 being accumulated electricity bills. (b) Interest on the GH¢ 1,500.00 from April, 2013 until the date of final payment at the Commercial Bank rate. (c) Cost. The Defendant denied liability of all the claims of the Plaintiff. THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF The Plaintiff’s case was that he has a house at Dambai lakeside and in the year 2015, he rented a single room in the said house to the defendant. According to him he and the defendant were initially using same meter but the defendant kept defaulting in the payment of his electricity bills and any time he gives money to the defendant to go and make payment of the bills the defendant squanders the money. The plaintiff said in one occasion the defendant misappropriated the electricity bills and he summoned the defendant before Togbe Kpataladza, the Ewe chief of Dambai before the defendant refunded the money. According to the defendant in order to avoid further problems with the defendant he acquired a separate meter and left the old meter under the care and exclusive use of the defendant. Plaintiff said at the time he acquired his separate meter there was arrears of GH¢100.00 on the said meter which he later gave money to the defendant to pay off the debt. Plaintiff again said the defendant and the other two tenant continue using the meter and anytime the bill is brought the other two tenants pay their part of the bill to the defendant but the defendant fails to pay the money to the ECG and kept squandering the same and accumulating debt on the meter. Plaintiff contended that due to the non-payment there was an accrued debt of GH¢1,500.00 and this compelled the ECG to disconnect electricity supply to the meter. Plaintiff said even after the disconnection by the ECG the defendant who is also an electrician made an illegal connection to the house and was enjoy electricity without paying. Plaintiff said due to the nefarious activities of the defendant he ejected the defendant from the house. Plaintiff said all efforts to get the defendant pay the debt to the ECG to pave way for the electricity supply to be restored to the house proved futile. The plaintiff tendered in evidence the electricity bill without objection and marked as exhibit “A” The Plaintiff called two witnesses as PW1 and PW2. According to PW1, she was also into the selling of spices and agushie and that it was the Plaintiff who had been supplying her with agushie to sell. PW1 told the court that she did not know anything about the transaction between the parties. Thereafter, the Plaintiff closed her case. THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT The Defendant in his defence stated that he rented a room in plaintiff’s house in 2015. Defendant said was connected to an electricity meter which was being used by the plaintiff and others and the plaintiff made him understand that the bill will be shared between the plaintiff and him each month. According to defendant at the end of the first month of his stay in the house the plaintiff asked to pay GH¢ 70.00. as his share of the bill but he resisted because there were six people using the meter and in his view the 70.00 was a bit on the high side. Defendant said even though he was paying his bills the plaintiff normally refuses to let him see the receipt any time the bill was paid. Defendant added that there was usually misunderstandings between him and the defendant and so he suggested to plaintiff to allow him take over the collection and payment of the bills which the defendant obliged. Defended stated further that when he took over the plaintiff kept defaulting in payment causing the bill to accumulate and the ECG subsequently disconnected their electricity. The plaintiff said after a while electricity was restored to the rest of the rooms with the exception of his room. According to defendant as at 2016 the accumulated arrears was 320.0. Defendant said in 2017 he was made to pay 120 and was reconnected. Defendant said the plaintiff vacated the use of the meter in 2018 and acquired his own meter and as at the time the arrears was about 600.00. Defendant denied the allegation that the rest of the tenants paid the bill to him which he misappropriated. The defendant described the allegations as false. Defendant said he left the plaintiff’s house in 2022 when the arrears was now about 1,500.00 on the meter he was using whilst living in plaintiff’s house he however contended that the said debt was incurred by him alone but with other tenants as well as the plaintiff. According to defendant the plaintiff gave him money to go and pay the bill but on that fateful day he did not have money at that material moment so he could not pay immediately but made the payment subsequently after the third day. Defendant said he was instructed by plaintiff to connect PW1 to the meter at a time there was already some arrears to be paid that he initially resisted because of the outstanding debt but later gave in and connected PW1 to the meter. The Defendant call one witness as DW1 and thereafter closed her case. DW1 who is the wife of defendant told the court that she and the defendant used to live in the plaintiff’s house at Dambai lakeside and were using one electricity meter with plaintiff. According to DW1 the plaintiff use to default in the payment of his share of the bill any time they were served with same by the ECG. DW1 said due to plaintiff’s default in paying his bills the ECG disconnected them. However the plaintiff acquired a separate meter and hence vacated the old meter which at the time was in arrears of bills of 600.00 and promised to pay same off later. DW1 further said that in 2019 the ECG reconnected the defendant to electricity on the old meter. DW1 stated that PW1 and PW2 were subsequently connected to defendant’s meter and since then the two have made payment of their bills on only one occasion. According to her the two paid 120 and 110 respectively to defendant and the defendant in turned paid same to the ECG. DW1 refuted the claim that defendant squandered bills that were paid to him by PW1 and PW2. The legal issue to be determined by this court are 1. Whether the Plaintiff and the other tenants paid electricity bills to the defendant. 2. Whether the defendant misappropriated electricity bills paid to him by the plaintiff and the other tenants In every civil case, the general rule is that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of his case. In the case of Lamptey alias Nkpa v. Fanyie & Others [1989-90] 1 GLR 286, the Supreme Court held that: “On general principles, it was the duty of a plaintiff to prove his case. However, when on a particular issue he had led some evidence, then the burden will shift to the defendant to lead sufficient evidence to tip the scale in his favour”. This is clearly covered by section 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). In resolving this dispute I will deal with both issue one and two together. After evaluating the entire evidence adduced during the trial, it is not in doubt that there is an outstanding electricity bill in respect Plaintiff’s house located at Dambai lakeside. Plaintiff’s exhibit “A” is electricity bill from the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) dated 12th July, 2022. The current bill as at the above stated date was 2.10, the previous bill was GH¢1,515.54 whilst the amount payable stood at GH¢1,517.64. The last payment made was on 7th October, 2021 and the payment amount was GH¢110.00. The fundamental issue to be resolved is whether or not the plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 had made payment at various period to the defendant in respect of the debt. The Plaintiff testified that after he acquired his separate meter he left the old meter under the care and exclusive usage of the defendant and at the time, the outstanding debt on the meter was GH¢100.00. The defendant did not challenge plaintiff on his assertion. The plaintiff further testified that he later gave GH¢ 100.00 to the defendant to go and pay off the debt but the defendant failed to pay the debt to the ECG so he summoned the defendant before Togbe Kpatalidza (Ewe chief of Dambai). The defendant in his evidence admitted that the plaintiff gave some money to him to pay the bill and he was supposed to add his share of the bill to plaintiff’s money before he could pay the debt but at that material moment he did not have money to add, so he waited for about three days and after he got the money he added it to plaintiff’s money and paid same to the ECG. In his evidence the defendant also admitted that he was summoned before Togbe Kpatalidza by the defendant. From the evidence I find that the plaintiff vacated the meter in question when there was a debt of only GH¢ 100.00 to be paid. I again find from the evidence that the said debt was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and it was that GH¢ 100.00 the defendant added GH¢10.00 to, and paid to the ECG on the 7th October, 2022 as captured in exhibit “A” supra. PW1 and PW2 testified that they are defendant’s cotenants and they share same electricity meter. They also testify that at the end of each month when the bill is brought by the ECG, the defendant share the bill among them and that they each pay their respective bills to the defendant. PW1 said since she came to the said house in 2017 she is being paying her bills religiously to the defendant. PW 2 in his evidence stated that he has been paying his bills to the defendant but at a point he realised that the defendant was defaulting in the payment of the bills to the ECG so he followed him to the office of the ECG to make the payment. Under the circumstances and having regard to the evidence adduced during the trial, I hereby enter judgment in favour of the plaintiff as follows: a) Recovery of GH¢ 1,554.64.00 b) Costs of GH¢ 500. 00 is awarded in favour of the plaintiff. ……………………………… ALHASSAN DRAMANI DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 21ST DECEMBER, 2022.