Acquaye v Amu (G/WJ/DG/A11/11/24) [2025] GHADC 190 (6 February 2025)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WEIJA, ACCRA, ON THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025, BEFORE HER WORSHIP RUBY NTIRI OPOKU (MRS), DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUI NO: G/WJ/DG/A11/11/24 HARRY LAUD ACQUAYE PLAINTIFF VRS MR. AYI KWEI AMU DEFENDANT PARTIES: PLAINTIFF IS PRESENT DEFENDANT IS ABSENT JUDGMENT The Plaintiff filed a writ of summons at the registry of this Court on 16th May 2024 against the Defendant for the following reliefs; 1. Return of Plaintiff’s Toyota Corolla Car with registration number GR 453R. 2. Recovery of cash the sum of GH¢2,500.00 being money Defendant collected from Plaintiff to clear the said piece of land. 3. Cost. Despite the fact that Defendant was served with the writ of Summons and hearing notices to attend Court as evidenced by affidavits of Service on the Court’s docket, Defendant failed to attend Court or file any process to contest the suit. The Court accordingly proceeded pursuant to Order 25 r 1 (2) (a) of the District Court Rules 2009, C.I 59 which reads; (2) Where an action is called for trial and a party fails to attend, the trial Magistrate may; 1 (a) Where the Plaintiff attends and the Defendant fails to attend, dismiss the counterclaim if any and allow the Plaintiff to prove the claim; THE CASE OF PLAINTIFF Plaintiff says somewhere in the year 2018, he needed two plots of land to purchase so he contacted the Defendant who showed him a piece of land situate at Domeabra-Kasoa. After negotiation, Defendant agreed to sell the two plots of land at a cost of GH¢20,000.00. Plaintiff says at the time he owned a Toyota Corolla car with registration number GR 453- R valued at GH¢35,000.00 which Defendant agreed to accept in exchange for the two plots of land. Plaintiff avers that parties entered into an agreement on 14th April 2018 after which he handed over the said car to the Defendant. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant took the sum of GH¢2,500.00 to hire labourers to clear the land and to make documentation on the said land. Plaintiff subsequently took possession of the land and erected corner pillars at the four corners of the land. Plaintiff testified that he went to the land another day and realised that someone had laid claim to the land and warned him not to step on the land. Plaintiff says he immediately informed Defendant who promised to get him another piece of land however to date Defendant has failed and or refused to grant him another piece of land or return his vehicle back to him. He prayed the Court to order the Defendant to return his car to him or in the alternative order him to pay the current market value of the car to him as well as the sum of GH¢2,500.00 used to clear the land. ISSUE SET DOWN FOR DETERMINATION 2 The issue set down for determination is whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to an order for the return of his Toyota Corolla Vehicle or payment of the current market value of same as well as the recovery of the sum of GH¢2,500.00 from the Defendant. BURDEN OF PROOF It is trite that in civil cases proof is by a preponderance of probabilities. Section 12 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) reads; Except as others provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities. In the case of Ackah v Pergah Transport Ltd [2010] SCGLR 728 AT 736, Sophia Adinyira JSC held as follows; “It is the basic principle of 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 Plaintiff relied on the agreement of the parties filed on 21st November, 2024 to prove his claim. Having considered Exhibit A, I find that parties entered into an agreement on the 14th April 2018 to the effect that the Plaintiff Harry Laud Acquaye the owner of Toyota Corolla Saloon Car with registration number GR 453-R agreed to give out the said Vehicle in Exchange for two (2) plots of land situate at Kasoa Domeabra and owned by the Defendant, Mr. Ayi Kwei Amu. Defendant failed to attend Court to deny the assertions of Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to lead evidence by way of receipts to prove that the sum of GH¢2,500.00 was paid to Defendant to be utilised on the land. 3 I hold that save the sum of GH¢2,500.00 claimed by the Plaintiff, he has satisfied the burden on him to prove his case by the preponderance of probabilities. Judgment is entered for the Plaintiff as follows: a) Defendant is ordered to return Plaintiff’s Toyota Corolla with registration number GR 453-R immediately to him or in the alternative pay for the current market value of same. b) Costs of GH¢5,000.00 is awarded in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant. ---------------(SGD)--------------------------- H/W RUBY NTIRI OPOKU (MRS) DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 4