JOHN VRS KATABO (A2/24/2023) [2024] GHADC 143 (30 January 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT SOMANYA ON TUESDAY THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP MICHAEL DEREK OCLOO. SUIT NO: A2/24/2023 TEYE JOHN } PLAINTIFF VRS APOSTLE EMMANUEL KATABO } DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT : PRESENT :ABSENT J U D G M E N T The Plaintiff commenced the action against the Defendant for the following reliefs: 1. Recovery of GH¢2,700.00 being the balance of GH¢5,400.00 for the purchase, transportation and fixing of an engine on a Toyota Corollas vehicle with Registration Number GW 5646-15 which the Defendant has failed to pay despite repeated demands. 2. Interest on the said amount since June 2019. 3. Costs of litigation The Defendant attended court twice and stopped entirely. Hearing notices were ordered to be serves on the Defendant but an Affidavit of non-service was filed indicating that the Defendant was out of jurisdiction. The Plaintiff filed an Ex-parte Motion for an order to serve the Hearing Notice, Writ of Summons and Statement of claim on the Defendant by way of substituted service which was granted and an Affidavit of posting was filed but the Defendant failed to appear in Court. Order 1 r 2 of the District Court Rules, 2009 C. I. 59 provides as follows: “These Rules are to be interpreted and applied in a manner that helps to a) Achieve speedy and effective justice b) Avoid delays and unnecessary expense c) Ensure that as far as possible, all matters in dispute between the parties are completely, effectively and finally determined. Also Order 27 rule 1 of C. I. 59 provides as follows: It is the duty of the parties, their lawyers and the Court to avoid unnecessary adjournments and other delays and ensure that causes or matters are disposed of as speedily as the justice of the case permits. On the strength of the above provisions the Court ordered the Plaintiff to file his Witness Statement which he did. It is the case of the Plaintiff per his Witness Statement that he got to know the Defendant through his (Plaintiff’s) driver Evans Tamatey who is PW1 in the instant case. He added that his driver called and told him that the Defendant had made a request to be allowed to use his (Plaintiff’s) car to travel to the Akuse Hospital where his (Defendant’s) wife has delivered a baby, home. He further stated that the Defendant also called and confirmed the request so he granted same. According to the Plaintiff on that same day in May 2019, the Defendant called and informed him that the car’s engine had broken down at a place between Asutsuare junction and Doryumu junction. The Plaintiff was not happy because the place that he Defendant stated that the car’s engine had broken down was a different route from the Akuse Hospital route. Upon enquiry the Defendant stated that the doctor told him to go and buy some drugs at Tema so he decided to use the car to Tema and it unfortunately broke down at the said spot. The Plaintiff further stated that he called Evans Tamatey and instructed him to go with a mechanic to inspect the car to know the extent of damage. The Plaintiff added that he summoned the Defendant at the palace of Nene Yao Agutey for arbitration where it was held that both parties should each pay half of the total cost of fixing the car which is made up of GH¢4,800.00 being the purchase price of the engine and GH¢600.00 being the cost of transportation and workmanship for fixing the engine on the vehicle. He added that he borrowed GH¢2,600.00 from Nene Agutey of Salosi Somanya and added same to his money to enable him make the total payment of GH¢5,400.00. The Plaintiff concluded that for the past 3 years he has made all efforts for the Defendant to pay his portion of GH¢2,700.00 but he has failed to do so. He attached the receipt of purchase of the engine which was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit ‘A’. In the evidence of PW1, Tamatey Evans corroborated the Plaintiff’s evidence and added that the Plaintiff took the matter to the police station where an agreement was reached that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall pay half each of the total cost of buying, transporting and fixing the engine. PW2 Nene Yao Agutey also confirmed the evidence of the Plaintiff. PW3 NO. 6457 D/PW/CPL Evelyn Aidoo corroborated the evidence of the Plaintiff in his Witness Statement. The legal issue for determination by the Court is whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs he seeks. The Court subjected the evidence of the Plaintiff to the prescribed standard of proof as provided in sections 10-14 of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323). It is also my finding after a careful examination and evaluation of the Plaintiff’s evidence that the Plaintiff has succeeded in adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the burden of proof. In the circumstance I enter judgment in favour of the Plaintiff for the recovery of GH¢2,700.00 with interest thereon from June 2019 till final day of payment. A costs of GH¢1000.00 is awarded in favour of the Plaintiff. (SGD) H/W MICHAEL DEREK OCLOO (MAGISTRATE) 30/01/2024 F. T. 4