Mohammed v Bedu (A2/463/24) [2025] GHADC 94 (22 January 2025)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT KASOA AKWELEY ON 22ND JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE HER WORSHIP ANNIE ADOBOR, MAGISTRATE SUIT NO. A2/463/24 BETWEEN ALHAJI YUSSIFU MOHAMMED - PLAINTIFF SUING PER HIS LAWFUL ATTORNEY H. A INTERNATIONAL VRS STEPHEN BEDU - DEFENDANT Plaintiff’s Attorney - Present Defendant - Absent COUNSEL: FRANK EDEM MORGAN (ESQ.) FOR THE PLAINTIFF =========================================================== JUDGMENT Plaintiff herein sued the Defendant for the recovery of cash the sum of Seventy-One Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢71,000.00), interest on the said money from April 2023 till final payment and costs including legal fees. After several unsuccessful personal service, Counsel for the Plaintiff made an application for leave to serve the Defendant with the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim by Substituted Service and same was granted and there is on record, an affidavit of posting. Page 1 of 4 ROA Several adjournments were made to allow the Defendant to be heard, however, nothing was heard from him, so the Plaintiff’s Attorney was ordered to file a Witness Statement for the case to progress and they have complied. Service of the Witness Statement on the Defendant too could not be made personally, since the Defendant was alleged to have been evading service, so upon an application for him to be served by substituted service, posting was proved to have been effected, even so, no word was heard from the Defendant. Where a case comes before a court, the court is obligated to hear both sides before making a decision. However, where it is evident that the Defendant would just not come to court though given a great opportunity so to do, the court cannot fold its hands and do nothing, it has to progress with the case and make a determination on it. PLAINTIFF’S CASE It is the case of the Plaintiff in his pleadings that, he is a business partner to the Defendant. Plaintiff continues that in and about May 2022, and January 2023, he gave a financial assistance of GH¢130,000.00 and USD4,000.00 to the Defendant for him to use in clearing his home used bicycles which he the Defendant imported and in return, supply he Plaintiff with goods to the amount given to the Defendant. He said that the Defendant cleared the goods and supplied them to him but it was short of goods worth Seventeen thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢17,000.00). Plaintiff continues that, the Defendant asked him for a further fifty thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢50,000.00) to help him clear goods on the high sea being brought to him and that, when the goods arrive, he would supply him with them to the tune of the GH¢17,000.00 and the GH¢50,000.00 so, he sent him the money in installment, some Page 2 of 4 ROA through mobile money transfers. He attached the momo transfer transactions as Exhibits. He said he even sent an additional cash of GH¢2,000 for clearing documentation. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant gave to him a tracking number of the shipping vessel on board before demanding for the GH¢50,000.00 saying that the goods have arrived at the Tema Port and when he contacted the clearing agent to verify and confirm the arrival of the container carrying the goods, the agent confirmed in the affirmative, later he was informed by the clearing agent that, another Alhaji was claiming ownership to the goods he has paid for. He said further that when he noticed a foul play, he made a report to the police and the cargo was impounded for the Defendant to come but he never showed up and the clearing document for the cargo was that of another and not he Plaintiff so, after twenty-four (24) hours, the goods were released by the police to the Alhaji whose name was on the documents and all efforts made by him for the Defendant to release his money to him, proved futile, hence this action. Though the Defendant has been served with the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, as well as the Witness Statement and the attachments, he bothered not to be in court. Several hearing notices were served on him, yet he was not moved and as stated earlier, we cannot wait for him in perpetuity, we need to listen to the Plaintiff and come out with a decision. The law obligates a party who makes an averment to prove same in order to convince the court of the existence of the fact he asserts as is provided in Section 10 of the Evidence Act of 1975 (NRCD 323). Though a default judgment, the Plaintiff is required to prove to the court that, he is entitled to his claims. Page 3 of 4 ROA He has filed documents to prove that indeed there was a contract between him and the Defendant in which he made some payment. Exhibit “B” is a Business Transaction Agreement and the Defendant acknowledged that he owes the Plaintiff an amount of GH¢130,000.00 and USD4,000 which he would settle off by supplying the latter with home-used bicycles to defray the cost. Both parties signed this document and with witnesses too. Exhibit “C” is a hand written document captioned Loan Agreement where there was undertaking that an amount of thirty-thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢30,000.00) has been collected from Alhaji Yussifu to clear goods. This document was allegedly signed by the Defendant and a witness by name Kodwo Asamoah as the importer and the Plaintiff as the buyer whose witness portion is empty and this was done on the 31st of March, 2023. Exhibit “D” is a document captioned “Truck My Shipment” and Exhibit E series are print outs of Mobile Money Transfers. Since the Defendant waived his right to be heard and has not even appeared in court, these documents were not interrogated, neither was there much fact findings. Based on evidence available on records, I found for the Plaintiff. His reliefs have all been granted except the legal fee. Costs is assessed at GH¢10,000.00 against the Defendant. (SGD) H/W. ANNIE ADOBOR (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) Page 4 of 4 ROA