Bransah v Aning (A2/24/25) [2025] GHADC 245 (27 June 2025)

_**9:00 A.M.**_ _**IN THE DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN REGION HELD AT EFFIA-KWESIMINTSIM, THIS FRIDAY THE 27**_ _**TH**_ _**DAY OF JUNE,2025 BEFORE HER WORSHIP BERNICE ODURO KWARTENG ESQ. (MS.).**_ _**THE MAGISTRATE.**_ _**SUIT NO. A2/24/25.**_ **SELINA BRANSAH ::: PLAINTIFF** **WS=144=1335** **WEST ANAJI** **VRS:** **SAMPSON OWUSU ANING ::: DEFENDANT** **RACE COURSE** **__________________________________________________________________** **JUDGMENT ON INTEREST** By a writ of summons filed on 8th June 2025, the Plaintiff claims for the following reliefs; 1. Recovery of the sum of Thirty-nine Thousand, Six Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH₡39,600.00) 2. Interest on the said sum from October 2024 till date of final payment 3. Costs for legal and other expenses 4. Any other order(s) as that the Honourable Court may deem fit. Upon the parties’ first appearance before this Honourable Court on the 28th May, 2025, the Defendant forthwith admitted liability in respect of the first relief claimed by the Plaintiff. Consequent upon the said admission, the court entered judgment on admission and accordingly ordered the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of GH₡39,600.00, being the advance rent payment for a shop at Market Circle for a term of three (3) years. The court referred the parties to settlement at the Court Connected ADR on the outstanding issue of interest, but they could not reach an agreement. Therefore, the court is to determine the issue of interest as same remains contentious. To determine the Plaintiff’s entitlement to interest and the computation start date, the court deemed it necessary to take evidence orally to resolve this dispute expediently. The Plaintiff testified that she paid the principal amount of GH₡39,600.00 to the Defendant in two installments within October 2024, and the Defendant provided a receipt in December 2024 as evidence of the payment. The Defendant declined to cross-examine the Plaintiff and instead indicated that the Plaintiff should be granted the interest she is requesting. The Defendant also testified that the Plaintiff gave him GH₡20,000.00 in October 2024, GH₡15,000.00 in early November, and GH₡4,560.00 in the first weekend of November, totaling GH₡39,560.00, which he acknowledged as the rent payment for a shop at Market Circle. Given the court’s judgment on admission for GH₡39,600.00 to the Plaintiff, **section 52(a) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323)** allows the court to exclude cumulative evidence on the amount, as the Defendant admitted liability and the court is functus officio on that issue. Thus, the only issue for the court to determine is whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to interest and if so, when to begin the computation of the interest. Viscount Simons in the case of **Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] AC 390 @ 398** defines interest as “the accumulated fruit of a tree which the tree produces regularly until payment”. Pursuant to **Order 28 rule 7(1) of the District Court Rules 2009 (CI 59),** the court has the power to award interest. The law provides as follows; 7\. (1) The Court, at the time of giving judgment or making an order or at any time afterwards, may _(a)_ direct the time within which a payment is to be made or another act done, and _(b)_ order the payment of interest at the same rate as a High Court may order in the circumstances. (2) The time for payment shall be reckoned from the date of the judgment or order or from some other point of time that the Court con­siders appropriate. In **Butt v. Chapel Hill Properties Ltd [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 636 at 652** the Supreme Court opined that: “once the Court holds that there was, in effect, an implied loan transaction between the Plaintiff and the first Defendant or the Defendants, the court is obliged to exercise its statutory power to award interest on the loan implied in order to preserve the value of the capital originally borrowed. Justice requires that on the facts of this case interest be awarded to the Plaintiff, even if not expressly claimed....” Similarly, the High Court held in **Plywood Point & Ors. v Agricultural Development Bank Suit No. GJ 45/2015 delivered 10****th****March 2016** that “admittedly, on the authorities, the rationale for the award of interest on a judgment debt is that if the judgment debtor had paid the money at the appropriate commercial time, the creditor would have had the use of it. Accordingly, the interest was really meant as compensation for what the Plaintiff had lost from the due date. See: **Heloo v. Tettey [1992] 2 GLR 112-129, Amartey v. Social Security Bank Ltd. And Others V. Robertson (Consolidated) [1987-88] 1 GLR 497-505 CA.** Applying the above principles, the court is obliged to exercise its power to award interest to preserve the value of the Plaintiff’s money. The Defendant’s retention of the money deprived the Plaintiff of its use, justifying an award of interest to compensate for this loss. The payment of interest is calculated from when the cause of action arises. The High Court in the Plywood Point case (supra) applying the reasoning in Da Costa v Ofori Transport [2007-2008] SCGLR 602 case held that “the law regarding calculation of interest is governed by the Courts (Award of interest and Post Judgment Interest) Rules, 2005 (CI 52). The law settles the thorny issue regarding the period when interest is to be paid. In Da Costa v. Ofori Transport [2007-2008] SCGLR 602, the Supreme Court held in accordance with CI 52 that the damages awarded are to bear interest at the prevailing bank rate from the date of the accrual of the cause of action. That case therefore emphasizes that interest is payable from the date of the cause of action and not from the date the writ was filed.” To ascertain when the cause of action accrued, the Plaintiff claims the total amount was advanced in October 2024, without specifying the exact date, while the Defendant provides the following dates for the payments: GH₡20,000.00 in October 2024, GH₡15,000.00 in the first week of November 2024, and GH₡4,560.00 in the same week. The Defendant’s decision not to cross-examine the Plaintiff’s testimony, especially her claim that she advanced the total amount in October 2024, amounts to an admission of her evidence. As established in **Fori v Ayirebi [1966] GLR 627** , failure to cross-examine implies admission of the opposing party’s testimony. This strengthens the Plaintiff’s case regarding the payment date. After not contesting the Plaintiff’s evidence and even suggesting she should be granted whatever interest she seeks, the Defendant then presents a contradictory defence regarding the payment dates. This appears to be a clear case of approbation and reprobation, undermining the Defendant’s credibility. The court finds the Plaintiff’s testimony more credible since it was not challenged by the Defendant. The burden of proof being on the Plaintiff pursuant to **sections 10, 11(1) and (4), 12 and 14 of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323)** , the court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has discharged this burden. Due to the Plaintiff’s inability to specify the exact payment date, the court will use the last date of October, i.e. 31st October, 2024, as the date for the computation of the interest. The Court of Appeal in **Gloria Bartels v. Emmanuel Iheme Civil Appeal No. H1/267/2005 delivered on 17 Nov 2006** held that when claiming interest on a sum of money, the Plaintiff must prove the date the money was given to the Defendant. Since the Plaintiff failed to prove the exact date, the court decided to award interest from the last day of the year mentioned i.e. 31st December, 1997, deeming it the most just approach given the circumstances. Consequently, the court holds that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover interest on the amount of GH₡39,600.00 from 31st October 2024 at the prevailing commercial bank rate till the date of final payment. The Plaintiff is to further recover interest on the judgment debt of GH₡39,600.00 from the date of the judgment that is, 28th May 2025 till date of final payment. The court awards costs of GH₡1,300.00 in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant. **H/W. BERNICE ODURO KWARTENG ESQ. (MS).** **DISTRICT MAGISTRATE** **EFFIA KWESIMINTSIM.** _**PARTIES:**_ PLAINTIFF PRESENT DEFENDANT ABSENT 3 | Page