Doddo v Agbowadah (A2/237/24) [2025] GHADC 115 (5 March 2025)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT LA HELD ON WEDNESDAY THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025, BEFORE HER WORSHIP ADWOA BENASO ASUMADU-SAKYI, SITTING AS MAGISTRATE SUIT NO: A2/237/24 EDNA DODDO HOUSE NO.9 ADAM SORSEY ST. GL-069-5250 TSE ADDO-ACCRA >>> PLAINTIFF VRS. JULIUS AGBOWADAH NUNGUA-ACCRA >>> DEFENDANT PARTIES: Plaintiff present Defendant absent JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION The Plaintiff filed this instant suit on the 27th of August, 2024 against the Defendant and prayed for the following reliefs; 1. The Plaintiff’s claim is an order directed at the Defendant to refund an amount of USS 1,000.00 (One Thousand US Dollars) or at current dollar rate paid to the Defendant in respect of a car purchase transaction with the Defendant. 2. The Plaintiff’s claim is an order directed at the Defendant to refund an amount of GH¢ 17,000.00 paid to the Defendant in respect of same car purchase transaction as additional money paid to the Defendant. 3. An interest on the GH¢ 17,000.00 from March, 2023 till date of final payment. 4. General damages for inconvenience and extreme hardship suffered by the Plaintiff 5. Costs Despite several hearing notices served on the Defendant, he refused to appear and as a result the Plaintiff was ordered to file her witness statement on the 17th of September, 2024. The Plaintiff complied with the orders of the court and filed her witness statement on the 9th of October, 2024. Case management conference was conducted on the 14th of November, 2024 and the Plaintiff was allowed to proof her case on the same day pursuant to Order 25 rule 2(1)(a) of the District Court Rules, 2009 (C.I 59). The case was then adjourned to the 28th of November, 2024 for cross examination by the Defendant and although hearing notice was served on him he refused to show up. The Plaintiff closed her case on the 28th of November, 2024 and the case was adjourned for judgment. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE The Plaintiffs’ case is that somewhere in July, 2022 she met the Defendant who claimed that he was a businessman and resided at Nungua. She states that she expressed an interest to purchase a small vehicle as the one she was using had a 2.00 engine to the Defendant. The Defendant in response to her interest informed her that he would sell one of the two Honda civic cars he had shipped into the country. She states that she informed the Defendant that although she was interested in purchasing one of the Honda Civic vehicles she did not have enough money to pay for the vehicle. The Defendant agreed to draw up a payment plan so she could pay the purchase price in full in instalment That somewhere in January, 2023 the Defendant called and informed her that the cars had arrived in the country and that he needed money to clear them from the port after which the payment plan will be drawn. She states that she informed the Defendant that she had invested the money she intended to use to pay for the car but she went on to state that she was ready to cancel the said investment and he agreed to this arrangement. After the money was ready she called the Defendant and asked him to come for the money from her house at Tse Addo. That she left an amount of One Thousand US Dollars (1,000.00 USD) with Esinam, her co-tenant and the Defendant went for same from this co-tenant. Despite giving the Defendant an amount of 1,000.00 USD, he demanded for more money and so she gave him an amount of Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 10,000.00) but the Defendant failed to deliver the car as agreed and gave an excuse that the mechanic was working on a minor issue on the car and that he would deliver same when he was done. She states that she questioned the Defendant after the car was still not delivered and he explained that he forsees the transaction would delay and in order to avoid that delay he would arrange another car for her. She states she agreed to this new arrangement because she needed a car but unfortunately she did not hear from the Defendant despite several attempts to get in touch with him until July, 2023 when the Defendant in order to deceive her further he took her to various car garages in search of a car of her choice and telling her paying she could pay the difference to him later. She states that she chose a KIA SOUL car but yet again the Defendant failed to honour his promise. She states that the Defendant approached her again and informed her of a car he had sighted and demanded additional money and promised that if he was unable to get her that car, he would buy a small one for her. She states that as a result of the promise she gave the Defendant an additional Seven Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 7,000.00). The Defendant later informed her that he had purchased a second-choice car for her and asked her to pick it up from the dealer’s garage but she could not reach the Defendant she went to his house and demanded the details of the car dealer who sold the car to the Defendant. The Defendant then gave her the name of the dealer as one Mr. Amankwah and also gave her his telephone number but the said dealer never picked her calls or called her back. That the Defendant has since then cut all forms of communication with her and has failed to refund her money to her despite several demands to him to do so. She prays the court grants her all her reliefs. DISCUSSION OF THE LAW The law is trite that a party who asserts a fact assumes the responsibility of proving same and thus the burden of producing evidence as well as the burden of persuasion is therefore cast on that party and the standard required is provided for by the virtue of sections 10,11 and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). The above stated provisions have received judicial blessings by the Supreme Court who has pronounced on them in the past to be the nature and standard of proof in civil cases. This position of the law has been reiterated in the case of Ackah v. Pegrah Transport Ltd And Others [2020] SCGLR 728 where in unanimously dismissing an appeal, the Supreme Court held as follows: “It is a basic principle of the law on evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail. The method of producing evidence is carried and it includes the testimonies of the party and material witnesses, admissible hearsay, documentary and things (often described as real evidence), without which the party might not succeed to establish the requisite degree of credibility concerning a fact in the mind of the court or tribunal of fact such as a jury. It is trite law that matters that are capable of proof must be proved by producing evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact is more probable than its non-existence. This is a requirement of the law on evidence under sections 10(1) and (2) and 11(1) and (4) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323),” See Ababio v. Akwasi IV [1994-1995] GBR 774. The Court has a duty to examine the evidence on record and determine whether the Plaintiffs have met the burden of proof. It is settled law that he who alleges must prove his case on the strength of his own case. This principle was enunciated in the case of Owusu v. Tabiri and Another [1987-88] 1 GLR 287 as follows: “It was a trite principle of law that who asserted must prove and win his case on the strength of his own case and not the weakness of the defence”. The Plaintiff testified on oath and relied on her witness statement where she repeated her assertions against the Defendant on the 14th of November, 2024. This testimony of the Plaintiff stands unchallenged as he refused to appear despite several notices being served on him. The position of the law is that when a party is given the opportunity to contest or lead evidence in defence of allegations against him but fails to avail himself of the opportunity, the court will be entitled to proceed with trail to its conclusion and make findings on the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial and proceed to give judgment. In Fori v. Ayirebi (1966) GLR 627 SC it was held that when a party had made an averment and that averment was not denied, no issue was joined and no evidence need be led on that averment. Similarly, when a party had given evidence of a material fact and was not cross examined upon it, he need not call further evidence of that fact. See Takoradi Flour Mills v. Samir Faris (2005-2006) SCGLR 890, In Re West Coast Dying Industry Ltd; Adam v. Tabdoh (1984-86) 2 GLR 561 SC and Watalah v. Primewood Products Ltd (1973) 2GLR 126. It is also settled law that a party is to suffer the consequences or liabilities for not attending court after he has been duly served with processes and accordingly notified. See Republic v. High Court (Fast Track Division); Ex-parte State Housing Co. Ltd (No. 2) (Koranten -Amoako Interested arty) (2009) SCGLR 185 at 190 and Agbewole v. Abodegbey (2012) 44 GMJ 124 at 129. It is settled law that a binding contract is a legally enforceable agreement between parties which is formed through either written or oral agreements or through the conducts of the parties involved. A contract is formed when there is an agreement between parties, supported by consideration, and the parties intend to be legally bound. In order to ascertain the existence of a binding contract, an objective test must be conducted by considering what an objective and reasonable bystander would have understood to be the intention of the parties based on their words and conduct, and not merely the intention of the parties. This test is even preferable where there is no written agreement between the parties, which can easily be referred to, and even where there is, the test is still used to determine whether the agreement reasonably confers contractual obligations on the parties. It must be noted that the alleged contract entered into between the parties was an oral one and this does not invalidate the agreement. See section 11 of the Contract Act, 1960 (Act 25). The courts look for whether or not the parties were at a consensus where there was no written agreement. In the case of IBM World Trade Corporation v. Hasnem Enterprise Limited [2001- 2002] 2 GLR 248 the court held as follows; “The rule is that where a contract has to find a contract in correspondence, and not in any one particular document, the entire set of correspondence which passed between the parties must be taken into consideration. In Thomas Hussey vrs John-Payne & Anor. (1879) 4 App. Case 311, Earl Carins, the Lord Chancellor said at p. 316:” “The second requisite in this case he proposes to supply through the medium of letters which passed between the parties and it is one of the first principles applicable to a case of the kind that where you have to find your contract, or your note or your memorandum of the terms of the contract in letter, you must take into consideration the whole of the correspondence which has passed. You must not at one particular time draw a line and say ‘we will look at the letters up to this point and find in them a contract or not, but we will look at nothing beyond’. In order to fairly estimate what was arranged, if anything was agreed between the parties you must look at the whole of that which took place and passed between them.” From the unchallenged testimony adduced by the Plaintiff it is clear that he has been able to meet the objective test to establish the existence of a contract between herself for the purchase of a vehicle which the Defendant has failed to adhere to. I hereby hold that the Plaintiff has been able to satisfy the burden on her by proving that the Defendant failed to adhere to their agreement for the purchase of vehicle after she paid the purchase price to him on a preponderance of probabilities and I hereby hold that the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs being sought. I will also discuss whether or not the Defendant should be ordered to pay interest on the amount owed. The learned Judge Brobbey J, in the case of Agyei v. Amegbe [1998-90] 1 GLR 351 held as follows; “…whenever interest is to be charged and paid in respect of money, the charge is based on the supposition that the person to pay the interest has had the use of the payee’s money. If the money is no longer with the person to be charged that interest, the basis for the interest will cease to exist. In other words, interest is not chargeable on non-existing indebtedness. Interest itself is regarded as money earned on money. This is why it is related to the specific amount in the possession of the person to pay the interest…” See IBM World Trade Corporation v. Hansem Enterprise Limited (supra). There is unchallenged testimony on record that the amount the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant has been owed since the year 2023 and the Defendant has refused to pay same. This means the Defendant has been in possession of same since 2023 and has deprived the Plaintiff use of same and as such is entitled to be paid interest on the amount owed to mitigate the cost she has incurred in this instant case. The Plaintiff is also seeking for general damages for the breach of contract. Damages refer to the compensation awarded to a party who has suffered harm or loss as a result of another party’s actions. The compensation awarded can vary depending on the circumstances of the case. The damages awarded should provide reparation for the wrongful act and all the natural and probable consequences of the Defendant’s act. General damages arise by inference of the law and therefore need not be proved by evidence. See Royal Dutch Airlines KLM and Another v. Farmex [1989-90] 2 SCGLR 623 and Youngdong Industries Limited v. Roro Services [2005-2006] SCGLR 816. There is unchallenged evidence on record that the Defendant breached the contract for the purchase of a small vehicle for which she paid an amount of an amount of 17,000.00 and 1,000 USD and yet till date the Defendant has failed to deliver the said car to the Plaintiff. Having considered the evidence in its entirety and based on my analysis above, I hereby award the Plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of Five Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 5,000) for the loss inconvenience and extreme hardship suffered by the Plaintiff due to the failure of the Defendant to deliver to the Plaintiff a vehicle although he has received an amount of GH¢ 17,000 and 1,000 USD. I also award cost of One Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 1,000) is awarded against the Defendant. CONCLUSION I hereby enter Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and make the following orders; a. The Defendant is ordered to pay an amount of One Thousand US Dollars (1,000.00USD) to the Plaintiff. b. The Defendant is ordered to pay an amount of Seventeen Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 17,000.00) to the Plaintiff. c. The Defendant is ordered to pay interest on the amount of Seventeen Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 17,000.00) at the prevailing bank rate from March, 2023 till the date of final payment. d. The Defendant is ordered to pay an amount of Five Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 5,000.00) for the inconvenience and extreme hardship suffered by the Plaintiff. e. Cost of One Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 1,000.00) is awarded in favour of the Plaintiff. SGD H/W ADWOA BENASO ASUMADU-SAKYI MAGISTRATE