Owiah v Otumi (A11/11/23) [2025] GHADC 114 (11 February 2025)

_**IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT LA HELD ON TUESDAY THE 11**_ _**TH**_ _**DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025. BEFORE HER WORSHIP ADWOA BENASO ASUMADU-SAKYI, SITTING AS A MAGISTRATE**_ _**SUIT NO: A11/11/23**_ **PROSPER TEYE OWIAH** **H/NO. G. 303/2** **LA/ACCRA >>> PLAINTIFF** **VRS.** **GODFRED ATTER OTUMI** **H/NO. F. 116,TSE-ADDO >>> DEFENDANT** **­­_______________________________________________________________** **PARTIES:** **Plaintiff present** **Defendant present** **_______________________________________________________________** **JUDGMENT** _**­­­­­­­­­­­­**_**­­­­­­­­_______________________________________________________________** _**INTRODUCTION**_ The Plaintiff filed this instant suit on the 27th of June, 2023 against the Defendant and prayed for the following reliefs; 1. Declaration by the honourable court that the agreement on work and pay entered into by plaintiff and defendant on Hyundai i10 Taxi Vehicle with registration Number GE6283-19 on the 6th day of October, 2020 is valid and same must be completed by the parties. 2. An order of the honourable court at defendant to return the Hyundai i10 Taxi Cub with registration number GE 6283-19 he caused the police to seize from plaintiff. 3. An order at defendant to replace the vehicle’s engine as part of their arrangement. 4. Cost The Defendant filed a statement of defence and counterclaim on the 10th of November, 2023 and prayed the court for the following reliefs; 1. An order for the remaining balance of the agreement 2. Any other orders this Honourable Court may deem fit The plaintiff was ordered to file his witness statement on the 1st of August, 2023 and he did so on the 9th of August, 2023. Case management conference commenced on the 10th of October, 2023 and was completed on the 21st of November, 2023 after the Defendant filed his witness statement on the 10th of November, 2023 after being granted a 14 day extension to do so. Hearing commenced on the 21st of November, 2023 and was completed on the 14th of November, 2024. _**BURDEN OF PROOF**_ 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 Defendant also bears the burden of proof on his claims and he counterclaimed. It must be reiterated that this Court has a duty to examine the evidence on record and determine whether the Plaintiff has 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 GLRR** 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”. _**PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE**_ The Plaintiffs’ case is that on the 6th of October, 2020 he entered into a work and pay agreement with the defendant in respect of his Hyundai i10 Taxi cap with registration number GE 6283-19. He tendered into evidence a copy of the said work and pay agreement as Exhibit A. He states that it was agreed that he was to make a total payment of Thirty Two Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 32,000.00) to the Defendant within 18 months and that he would pay a weekly instalment of Four Hundred and Fifty Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 450.00). He states that he has so far paid an amount of Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 31,430.00) He also states that he started keeping records of the weekly money he paid to the Defendant personally in a notebook but when the Defendant refused to sign this note book he decided to change the method of payment by paying the weekly payment tendered into evidence photocopies of the notebook in which he recorded the payments he made to the Defendant and same which was marked as Exhibit B series. The Plaintiff states that everything was going well until he received a call that the car had been seized by the police after the Defendant in an attempt to cheat him out of the agreement lodged a complaint against him at the police station. He proceeded to the police station and he explained the work and pay agreement to the police officers who upon hearing this asked him to take the vehicle away so he could continue to work and gather money to pay the Defendant. He states that it was a term in the work and pay agreement that the Defendant was to repair the vehicle’s engine the first time it broke down but the Defendant refused to do on the two occasions it broke down. He further states that as a result of the Defendant’s refusal to adhere to the terms of the agreement, when the vehicle broke down the second time he could not repair it as he did not have enough money so he parked the vehicle and stopped working for a couple of months. He went on to state that he received a call from a friend who advised him to come for the vehicle as it’s condition was deteriorating due to the weather but he could not do that. He then agreed to allow a friend who was a mechanic to come for the vehicle so he could repair it and give it to someone to work with it as he was in the village receiving treatment. The mechanic repaired the vehicle and handed the vehicle to a new driver. Unfortunately this new driver was arrested shortly after he started driving the vehicle by the Defendant who then sent him and the vehicle to the police station and once again he was called by the police officers. He once again informed the police of the circumstances surrounding the work and payment agreement to the police and they advised him to institute a civil action in court and that they would release the vehicle to him after the court’s decision. He therefore prays the court grants all his reliefs. _**DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE**_ The Defendant states that he gave his Hyundai Taxi cab with registration number GE 6283-19 to the Plaintiff for work with and he states that it was agreed that the Plaintiff would render sales to him on a weekly sales basis. He states that after the Plaintiff had worked with the taxi for a while he decided to enter into a work and pay agreement with the Plaintiff on the 6th of October, 2020. He states that the total amount agreed to under the work and payment was Thirty Two Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 32,000.00) states further that this amount would be paid by the Plaintiff within eighteen months by paying Four Hundred and Fifty Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 450.00) every week. He states that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of the agreement and only paid an amount of Fourteen Thousand and Four Hundred and Forty Five Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 14,445.00). He states that although the Plaintiff claims he has paid more than the GH¢ 14,445.00 this higher figure being claimed to have been paid by the Plaintiff includes the earlier weekly sales he paid to him under the oral agreement before the work and pay agreement was entered into on the 6th of October, 2020. He states that after a while the Plaintiff failed to show up in his house and as he has been doing and all efforts to locate him proved futile. He states that upon the realization that the weekly sales as agreed to under the work and pay agreement were not adding up and the Plaintiff was nowhere to be found, he lodged a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff to the police. He states that his complaint led to the Plaintiff’s arrest and that when the Plaintiff was arrested he was informed of same but unfortunately he could not make it to the police station as he had another case pending in another court and he asked the police officer who called him to ask the plaintiff to park the car at the police station and that he would get there by 12 noon. Two minutes later the police officer called him back and informed him that the Plaintiff had somewhere to be and he could not wait for him. He states after the Plaintiff was allowed to go away from the police station he could not locate the plaintiff or the vehicle anywhere. He states that he was informed that the Plaintiff had moved out of the house he knew was his known address He further states that he later located the vehicle being driven by another driver so he arrested this new driver and sent him and the vehicle to the police station and the states that vehicle is still in the custody of the police till date. He therefore prays the court grants his reliefs and determine the amount owed by the Plaintiff as agreed under the work and payment. _**DISCUSSION OF THE LAW AND THE FACTS**_ The Plaintiff mounted the witness box and testified on oath by relying on his witness statement on the 21st of November, 2023 and repeated his assertions against the defendant. 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.” There is no contention that the parties entered into a work and pay agreement which is a binding contract and from the attitude of both parties it is clear that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant intended to be bound by the terms of the agreement. The Plaintiff tendered into evidence a copy of the said agreement and same was marked as Exhibit A. I will now reproduce this work and pay agreement as follows; _**WORK AND PAY AGREEMENT**_ **THIS WORK AND PAY AGREEMENT** is made on 6th of October, 2020 between **Godfred Atter Otumin of H/No. F/116, Tse-Addo, Last Stop (hereinafter called the ‘Car Owner’) on the one part AND Prosper Teye Owiah of House No. G 303/2 Lamptey George La (hereinafter called ‘the Driver’)** of the other part. WHEREAS 1. The Car Owner owns Hyundai i10 with registration number GE 6283-19. 2. The driver is licensed by the DVLA to drive in Ghana. 3. The driver has requested the car owner to release to him his vehicle No. GE 6283-19 for the purpose of work and pay and the car owner has agreed to do so. **NOW THEREFORE THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:** 4. That the driver shall do a weekly sales of GH¢ 450.00 for 18 months beginning from 4th August 2020 to 4th February 2020. 5. That throughout the period of this agreement the car owner shall repair or replace the car engine as the case may be on only one occasion thereafter any breakdown on the engine shall be borne by the driver. 6. That the driver shall take charge of the vehicle and be responsible for all other repairs throughout the agreement. 7. That the driver shall renew a car insurance, road worthy certificate or any other throughout the agreement. 8. That at the end of this agreement the car owner shall partner the driver on a 50 to 50 basis to replace the engine before handing over the vehicle to the driver should the engine be confirmed as weak at the time. 9. That both parties shall diligently perform their obligations under this agreement. **DATED AT ACCRA THIS 6****th****OF October 2020** The terms of the agreement is clear and unambiguous and states that the total amount to be paid was Thirty Two Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 32,000.00) which was to be paid in instalment in 18 months. What must be determined is whether or not the terms of the agreement were breached. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he has so far made a total payment of GH¢ 31,430.00 out of the total amount of GH¢ 32,000.00 agreed to. This was denied by the Defendant who testified that the Plaintiff had made payment of GH¢ 14,445.00 out of the total amount. The Plaintiff in support of his case tendered into evidence photocopies of the entries of the payments he made in a book which was marked as Exhibit B series. I have perused Exhibit B series and it is clear that although the weekly payment agreed to was GH¢ 450.00, it is clear that the Plaintiff paid different amounts each week which were lower than the GH¢ 450.00 agreed to. The explanation the plaintiff gave during his testimony was that the Defendant on several occasions asked him to make payments to the tune of either GH¢ 30 or GH¢ 40 to different people sometimes twice a week which meant that by the end of the week he would have made some payments and he only had to add GH¢ 100 to make up the agreed GH¢ 450.00. It is also interesting to note that the Defendant agreed that the Plaintiff made the payments as required under the agreement during cross examination on the 14th of November, 2024. This is what he had to say: Q. Did I give you the agreed payments while I worked with the car? A. Yes you did through Momo and you did not inform me before you sent the money. I had to check my phone myself and call you It is trite that where an opponent admits a fact in issue the other party need not proof that fact. Admission is defined by the 7th edition of the Black’s Law Dictionary as a voluntary acknowledgment of the existence of facts relevant to an adversary’s case. Justice Brobbey in his book, Essentials of Ghana Law of Evidence at page 112 explained admissions to mean the fact or issue which has been conceded and is no longer in contention. Also in the case of In Re Asere Stool; Nikoi Olai Amontai IV (Substituted by) Tafo Amon II v. Akotia Owirsika III (Substituted by) Laryea Ayiku III [2005-2006] SCGLR 637 at 656, which was quoted with approval in Fynn v. Fynn [2013-2014] SCGLR 727 at 738 the court held as follows: “Where an adversary has admitted a fact advantageous to the cause of a party, that party does not need any better evidence to establish that fact than by relying on such admission, which is an example of estoppel by conduct.” See Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa and Another v. Jake Obetsebi Lamptey and Another [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR. With this admission by the Defendant in mind the Plaintiff need not prove that he was adhering to the terms of the contract. The problem which led to the institution of this instant case was when the Plaintiff stopped showing up in the Defendant’s house with the vehicle which in his opinion meant the Plaintiff had stolen his car. The parole evidence rule posits that where a contract is made wholly in writing, evidence is not admissible to add to, vary or contradict the written terms. Thus, where a written document is prima facie taken to be the whole contract and everything dehors the written document is excluded. Thus, no extrinsic evidence is allowed to add to, vary or contradict the terms of the written contract. Some exceptions however may be applied by the courts, in which case the court may admit extrinsic evidence. Even so, the courts will not admit extrinsic evidence for the purpose of re-writing the contract for the parties but only for the purpose of explaining the contract. This rule is explained further by section 177 of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) as follows: (1) Except as otherwise provided by the rules of equity, terms set forth in a writing intended by the party or parties to the writing as a final expression of intention or agreement with respect to those terms may not be contradicted by evidence of a prior declaration of intention, of a prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement or declaration of intention, but may be explained or supplemented, (a) by evidence of consistent additional terms unless the Court finds the writing to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the intention or agreement, but a will and a registered writing conveying immovable property shall be deemed to be a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the intention of agreement; and (b) by a course of dealing or usage of trade or by course of performance This rule postulates that though evidence is not allowed of prior or contemporaneous intentions of agreements to contradict a written document that contains the final intentions or agreement of the parties, evidence is allowed if its purpose is not to contradict to but to explain or supplement the final written document, not to contradict it. There is however exceptions to this rule which are stated in the case of Jacobs v. Batavia and General Plantations Trust Ltd. (1924) 2 Ch 287 as follows: “It is firmly established as a rule of law that parole evidence cannot be admitted to add to, vary or contradict a deed or other written instrument. Accordingly, it has been held that (except in cases of fraud or rectification, and except in certain circumstances, as a defence to an action for specific performance) parole evidence will not be admitted to prove that some particular term, which had been verbally agreed upon, had been omitted (be design or otherwise) from a written instrument constituting a valid and operative contract between the parties”. See the case of Kwadwo Twum Barima v. Kwabena Ayele, Civil Appeal No. H2/69/2012, 28th February, 2013 I have carefully read the agreement and nowhere has been stipulated that the Plaintiff was required to bring the vehicle to the Defendant’s house every day as being claimed by the Defendant. Any other evidence adduced by the Defendant in support of his claim would contradict the terms of Exhibit B and this court cannot allow such evidence to stand. It is clear from Exhibit B that what was required was for the weekly payments to be made, it was however silent on how this payment was to be made. Therefore the testimony of the Defendant that the Plaintiff was required to bring the taxi to his house is an unknown term to this court and the court holds as such. The Plaintiff by paying the weekly sales fulfilled his obligations under the contract and this was admitted by the Defendant. Thus, I hereby hold that the Plaintiff failing to show up at the Defendant’s house did not amount to a breach of the contract. It is also clear that although there is a disagreement between the parties as to how much has been paid by the Plaintiff this does not invalidate the contract. The Plaintiff claimed that he already started making payments before the contract was signed and thus that the earlier money must be factored into how much he has paid. The Defendant on the other hand however claimed that the work and pay agreement begun on the 6th of October, 2020 and the payments the Plaintiff made prior to the commencement, was the weekly sales which must not be calculated as part of the money he had paid under the work and pay agreement. The Defendant cross examined the Plaintiff on this fact during cross examination on the 21st of November, 2023 and this is what transpired: Q. Which month did the agreement commence? A. 4th August, 2020 Q. If you were speaking the truth then why did you state that the agreement started on 6th October A. The date we made the agreement was 6th October and that was because you gave me the car on the 4th of August and the agreement was signed on 6th of October. It must also be noted that from the testimony adduced by the Plaintiff it was admitted by the Plaintiff that this document was prepared by a lawyer who read same to the Plaintiff before he signed same as he admitted during cross examination; Q. Did my lawyer read the content of the agreement to you before you signed same? A. He read it before I signed it A careful read of Exhibit A clearly indicates that the work and payment agreement was executed on the 6th of October, 2020 but it states that the weekly payment shall commence on the 4th August, 2020 and end on the 4th of February, 2020. I will reproduce paragraph 4 of the work and pay agreement as follows; 4.That the driver shall do a weekly sales of GH 450.00 for 18 months beginning from 4th August 2020 to 4th February 2020. The parties were privy to the terms of the agreement before they signed same and it is important to note that this document was purportedly prepared by the Defendant’s lawyer and as such it is not for him to now interpret the document how it suits him. Thus although the agreement was signed on the 6th of October, 2024, payment was to commence on the 4th of August, 2020. I will therefore exclude all payments made before the 4th of August, 2020 when calculating the payment made so far. It must be noted that the following dates as appears in Exhibit B series were cancelled; 4th August, 2020, 25th February, 2021, 1st May, 2021, and some of the figures were also ineligible and those dates are 8th of December, 2020, 15th of December, 2020. The payments made on these dates will not be considered in this judgment. I have also carefully perused Exhibit B series and the payments begun on the 10th of August, 2020 and ended on the 24th of February, 2022 and that will bring the total amount to Thirty Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 30,830.00) with the exclusion of the dates stated above. Although the Defendant denied that the Plaintiff had made payment to the tune being claimed by the Plaintiff he failed to prove on a preponderance of probabilities that indeed the amount of GH¢ 14,445.00 was what had been paid by the Plaintiff. All he did was to enter the witness box and repeat his assertions against the Plaintiff and this did not meet the burden placed on him. In the case of Klah v. Phoenix Insurance Company Limited [2012] SCGLR 1139, the Supreme Court held as follows; “Where a party makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way in some positive way e.g. by producing documents, description of things, reference to other facts, instances and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the witness box and repeating that averment on oath or having it repeated on oath by his witness. He proves it by producing other evidence of facts and circumstances from which the Court can be satisfied that what he avers is true.” See the case of Majolagbe v. Larbi [1959] GLR 190 Just entering the witness box and repeating his assertions does not meet the burden and as such I hereby hold that the Defendant has failed to proof that the Plaintiff paid only GH¢ 14,445.00. The Defendant was also unable to discredit the evidence of the plaintiff on how much he had paid during cross examination. This is what transpired during cross examination of the Plaintiff on the 21st of November, 2023; Q. Did you adhere to the weekly payment schedule? A. Yes I did. However when I was working you will call me to pay certain amounts of money to different people, I sometimes paid GH¢ 30 or GH¢ 40. You could call me 2 times a day demanding for money and as a result by the end of the week it would have exhausted the weekly sales by the end of the week it would have exhausted the weekly sales and I top up with GH¢ 100. Q. As you have stated you used to record the alleged money I demanded into a book, did you ever bring the said book to me for me to sign A. Yes I did and you told me that I should continue recording since you were aware of the amount of money you had demanded from me. Q. I put it to you that you are being untruthful to this Court A. That is not true. I have taken an oath to be truthful and I cannot lie Q. Why did you not report me to the police when I refused to sign the note book? A. You told me to record in the notebook as you were also recording yours in the notebook and that one day you will sign it Q. I put it to you that you are being untruthful A. I am not being untruthful From the above I have come to the conclusion that the Defendant was unable to discredit the testimony of the Plaintiff and I hereby hold that the Plaintiff made payment to the tune of Thirty Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 30,830.00) and the remaining amount to be paid is One Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 1,170). It is quite unfortunate that the Plaintiff failed to attach copies of the mobile money transaction history which would have supported his case and all I can do is to rely on the evidence on record. Accordingly, I hereby conclude that the Plaintiff paid an amount of GH¢ 30,830.00 and the remaining amount to be paid is GH¢ 1,1700.00. What is surprising is that although this agreement was supposedly prepared by a lawyer and yet there is no default clause in the agreement. That being said there is evidence on record that the Hyundai i10 Taxi cab has been seized by the police after the Defendant lodged a complaint against the Plaintiff and thus this brought the contract to a halt in the year 2022. This therefore brought a halt in the payments to be made by the Plaintiff which was through no fault of his and thus his failure to adhere to the terms of the agreement does not invalidate the agreement and both parties must endeavour to complete same after the taxi cab is released back to the Plaintiff. The second relief being sort by the Plaintiff cannot be granted as the taxi cab is in the custody of the police at labadi police station and not the Defendant although I do not understand why the cab was seized by the police if no criminal charges have been brought against the Plaintiff. I am sure after this judgment is delivered the taxi cab will be released to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is also seeking for the Defendant to replace the engine of the as agreed to in the work and pay agreement. Per, paragraph 5 of Exhibit B it is stipulated that the car owner shall repair or replace the car engine as the case may be on only one occasion. After this first repair or replacement any subsequent breakdown shall be borne by the driver. The Plaintiff’s case is to the effect that when the vehicle in question broke down on two occasions and the Defendant failed to repair or replace it as agreed to by the parties. This is what ensued during cross examination of the Plaintiff on the 30th of November, 2024; Q. You said the police made this suggestion, can you tell this court what offence you committed against me and that led me to lodge a complaint against you and they told you that I wanted to take the car from you A. …I also pick your children to school and pick them from school and you never paid me, until the car broke down. You told me that when the car breaks down you will repair it for me…. The Plaintiff during cross examination also testified that he had a witness who would corroborate his side of the story. Q. You have stated in your claim that the car’s engine got spoilt for a long time and you informed me. I put it to you that I had no idea that the engine was spoilt and that you informed me. A. I have a witness to attest to this fact that indeed I told you of the engine breaking down. Unfortunately the Plaintiff failed to call this material witness to corroborate his story and the failure to do so did not help his case. See the case of Manu v. Nsiah **[2005-06] SCGLR 25.** The Plaintiff therefore failed to lead cogent evidence to prove on a preponderance of probabilities that the Defendant failed to repair or replace the car’s engine when it broke down. Since I have held that Exhibit B is still binding on the parties when it is released to the Plaintiff if it comes to light that the engine has broken down then pursuant to the agreement the Defendant is under an obligation to adhere to the terms and repair or replace it. I hereby award cost of GH¢ 500.00 in favour of the Plaintiff. **SGD** **H/W ADWOA BENASO ASUMADU-SAKYI** **MAGISTRATE**