WUMBOL VRS NAYIL (NR/DC/KPA/A2/44/24) [2024] GHADC 549 (17 December 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT SITTING AT KPANDAI, NORTHERN REGION ON THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP GODSON ETSE KUMADO, ESQ. - THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUIT NO: NR/DC/KPA/A2/44/24 AYISHA WUMBOL ] PLAINTIFF OF KPANDAI ] VRS BINANGNANBONA NAYIL ] DEFENDANT (A.K.A NAKOE) OF KPANDAI ] _________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT _________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION The Plaintiff took the instant action against the Defendant for the reliefs as endorsed on her writ of summons as follows: 1. [Recovery of] cash the sum of seven thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢7,000) being the total amount given to Defendant to purchase bags of dry cassava which the Defendant promised to supply but has failed to supply despite repeated demands. 2. An interest of GH¢1,300 from the GH¢2,200 defendant used to purchase dry cassava and resell same at a profit of GH¢1,300. 3. A share of the 52 bags of dry cassava the defendant uses the GH¢7,000 to purchase and resell same at a cost of GH¢300 per bag totaling GH¢15,600. Page 1 of 26 4. Payment of interest on the said amount at the prevailing market price since January, 2024 to date. 5. Damages and other incidental expenses of GH¢2,000. 6. Cost of trial. 7. Any other order(s) that the court may deem fit. The Defendant on her appearance in court after being served with the Plaintiff’s writ pleaded not liable to the reliefs claimed against her. She however stated that the amount she owes the Plaintiff is GH¢4,800 and not the GH¢7,000 being claimed by the Plaintiff. The matter therefore proceeded to trial for a determination as to whether the Defendant owes the Plaintiff GH¢7,000 or GH¢4,800. THE CASE AND EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF By the summary of subject matter attached to the writ, the Plaintiff avers that she and the Defendant are both traders. In the early part of the year 2024 the Defendant told her she needed an amount of GH¢1,200 to be given to a relative of hers who is bereaved and needed the money to attend the funeral. She therefore gave the Defendant the said amount and the Defendant promised to pick up four (4) bags of cassava from her said relative for the Plaintiff in place of her money in three days’ time. After the three days expired, the Defendant told her she sold the four (4) bags of cassava and made profit of GH¢300. The Defendant called her again after few days to request for more funds to purchase cassava for her and she gave the Defendant an additional GH¢1,500. Page 2 of 26 She again took an amount of GH¢2,000 from her son’s girlfriend and gave it to the Defendant on her request for further funds to purchase the cassava. The Defendant later informed her that she resold the cassava and made a profit of GH¢1,000. The Defendant also informed her she has used the amount of GH¢2,000 she took from her son’s girlfriend as well as the profit of GH¢1,000 she made to purchase more cassava for her. According to the case of the Plaintiff, the Defendant requested for further funds to buy the cassava and she took the amounts of GH¢750 each from her friends, Fati and Lardi and gave to the Defendant. She also added the amount of GH¢800 which was her money with Fati and gave all to the Defendant totaling GH¢2,300. The Defendant on receipt of the said monies requested for more funds and so she went to her friend, sister Akos together with the Defendant so as to get some monies for her. On reaching the house of sister Akos, she accused the Defendant of being a fraudster who is in the habit of defrauding people. The Plaintiff testified for herself and called three other witnesses to testify in support of her case. By her evidence in chief, the Plaintiff testified that the Defendant called her one night and requested for an amount of GH¢2,000 to be given to a relative of hers to enable him attend a funeral and to supply her dried cassava in its place. She was however only able to afford GH¢1,500 which she gave to the Defendant. The Defendant later called her to get her sacks ready for bagging of the cassava. She thereupon gave the Defendant an amount of GH¢30 for the purchase of four sacks. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant informed her that after bagging the cassava for her, some buying company came around and were buying the cassava at a higher rate so she sold the cassava to them. The Defendant later informed her to let her money remain with her to continue investing in the business. It is the testimony of the Plaintiff that the Defendant requested for further funds and she took GH¢750 each from her friend, Gao Fati and sister, Nyong Lardi and gave to the Defendant. Page 3 of 26 The Defendant after some weeks told her a relative of hers at Balai was bereaved and needed to sell some bags of cassava in order to buy a cow for the funeral. She therefore took the amount of GH¢2,000 from her sister-in-law by name Linda and gave to the Defendant. She later went to Gao Fati together with the Defendant and collected an amount of GH¢800 which she gave to the Defendant for the purchase of four additional bags of cassava. The Defendant requested for further funds but she told her to go with her to one sister Akos whether she could get her the monies. On reaching her house, a brother of the said sister Akos stated that the Defendant is a fraudster and that if he had known he would not have permitted her to transact business with the Defendant. He also added that the Defendant is in the habit of borrowing money without paying. She immediately demanded of the Defendant to pay her all her monies but the Defendant said the buyers who bought the cassava from her were yet to make payment to her. She then reported the matter to the Assemblyman, Honourable Karim who also caused the arrest of the Defendant. According to the Plaintiff, when they met at the house of the assemblyman, the Defendant mentioned that she has made a profit of GH¢22,800 with the money she gave her. In support of her case the Plaintiff tendered in evidence EXHIBIT A which is an estimate of monies or bags of cassava she claims the Defendant admitted she purchased with the monies she gave her. In support of her case the Plaintiff called the assemblyman, Honourable Haruna Abdul Karim (PW1), Linda Baki (PW2) and her son, Solomon Kwame Kabanda (PW3) to testify. The evidence of these witnesses will be discussed shortly. THE CASE AND EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT The Defendant on her part testified in support of her case and called no other witness in support of her case. By her evidence in chief the Defendant testified that the Plaintiff gives her monies to buy and sell cassava and they share the proceeds. On two occasions she sent the Page 4 of 26 proceeds to the Plaintiff and they shared but on the third occasion, the buyers picked the cassava from her without making payment for them. The Defendant continued and stated that she first sent the amount of GH¢3,000 to the Plaintiff and she gave her GH¢200 as her share of the proceeds. The Plaintiff later gave her GH¢1,500 to buy and sell cassava. She brought proceeds of GH¢2,100 to the Plaintiff who told her she took the said money from Fati. She then took the said monies to Fati on the instructions of the Plaintiff. Out of the GH¢2,100 Fati gave her GH¢100 as her share of the proceeds, took GH¢200 and gave the balance of GH¢1,800 back to her to invest into the cassava business. The Plaintiff also took GH¢2,000 from her daughter-in-law and gave same to her to buy the cassava. According to the Defendant, with this GH¢3,800 she was able to purchase 13 bags of cassava at the cost of GH¢300 per bag. One Enoch however picked up all the 13 bags of cassava without paying for them. According to the testimony of the Defendant, the Plaintiff requested for GH¢300 for her son in school which she gave to her. Plaintiff also asked her to bring her GH¢250 in her house. She however did not meet the Plaintiff at home so she gave the money to one of her rivals (her sister wives) to be given to her and Plaintiff later confirmed receipt of the said money. When the said Enoch who picked up the cassava refused to pick up her calls, she made one man to call the Plaintiff to plead on her behalf. Both parties later went to the Assemblyman to narrate their stories to him. From there the Plaintiff reported the matter to the police and caused her arrest. The Police advised that she pays the monies owed to the Plaintiff in installments. Based on that she sent GH¢1,000 to the Assemblyman a week after but the Plaintiff rejected it. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COURT From the respective cases and the evidence of both parties, the main issue for determination between the parties is, whether or not the Plaintiff gave the amount of GH¢7,000 to the Defendant for the purchase of cassava. Page 5 of 26 BURDEN OF PROOF The basic rule of evidence is that a party has the burden to prove his or her assertions. He discharges the burden by producing sufficient and cogent evidence so as to convince the court that the fact he is claiming is true. This is the requirement of sections 14 and 17 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) which provides that: 14. Allocation of burden of persuasion Except as otherwise provided by law, unless it is shifted a party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or non-existence of which is essential to the claim or defence that party is asserting. 17. Allocation of burden of producing evidence Except as otherwise provided by law, (a) the burden of producing evidence of a particular fact is on the party against whom a finding on that fact would be required in the absence of further proof; (b) the burden of producing evidence of a particular fact is initially on the party with the burden of persuasion as to that fact. Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the NRCD 323 are also relevant to the discourse on the allocation of the burden of proof as they define the meaning of burden of persuasion and the burden of producing evidence as well as the standard of proof required in civil cases. The relevant provisions are reproduced as follows: Page 6 of 26 10. Burden of persuasion defined (1) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of persuasion means the obligation of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court. (2) The burden of persuasion may require a party (b) to establish the existence or non-existence of a fact by a preponderance of the probabilities or by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 11. Burden of producing evidence defined (1) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling on the issue against that party. (4) In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence which on the totality of the evidence, leads a reasonable mind to conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non- existence. 12. Proof by a preponderance of the probabilities (1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities. Page 7 of 26 (2) “Preponderance of the probabilities” means that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence. The courts have over the years endorsed these provisions and held that when a party makes an averment which is denied by his opponent, he must lead credible and admissible evidence from which the facts he asserts can be inferred. See the case of ZABRAMA v SEGBEDZI (1991) 2 GLR 221-247 where the court summed up the position of the law in the following words: “The correct proposition is that, a person who makes an averment or assertion, which is denied by his opponent, has the burden to establish that his averment or assertion is true. And he does not discharge this burden unless he leads admissible and credible evidence from which the fact or facts he asserts can properly and safely be inferred. The nature of each averment or assertion determines the degree and nature of that burden.” This position was further affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of DON ACKAH v PERGAH TRANSPORT [2011] 31 GMJ 174 where the Court noted per Adinyira JSC that: 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 varied 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 sufficient evidence so that on all the Page 8 of 26 evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact is more reasonable than its non-existence. In the instant case, the Plaintiff claims that the total amount she gave to the Defendant for the purchase of cassava is GH¢7,000. She therefore demands repayment of the said money from the Defendant together with her share of the profits made on the said money by the Defendant. The Defendant denied that the Plaintiff gave her GH¢7,000. According to her, the total monies she owes the Plaintiff is GH¢4,800. The Defendant having denied the claims of the Plaintiff, the burden is now on the Plaintiff to lead admissible and credible evidence to prove that indeed the total monies she remitted to the Defendant summed up to GH¢7,000, failure of which her claim must necessarily fail. Recounting the monies she gave to the Defendant, the Plaintiff testified that she first gave an amount of GH¢1,500 to the Defendant. This was when she informed her that a relative of hers was in need of money to attend a funeral at Tatale and had some cassava in the process of drying for sale. She also gave the Defendant GH¢30 for the purchase of four sacks to bag the cassava for her. The Defendant later informed her she has sold the cassava to a buying company and encouraged her to keep her monies with her to continue the buying and selling of the cassava. The next batch of monies she gave to the Defendant was GH¢750 which she took from her friend, Gao Fati upon her request for further funds to buy the cassava. She also took GH¢750 from her sister, Nyong Lardi and gave to the Defendant. In addition to this, the Defendant requested for further funds and she took GH¢2,000 from her daughter-in-law by name Linda and gave to the Defendant. She again went to Gao Fati with the Defendant and took GH¢800 and gave to the Defendant for the cassava. Page 9 of 26 From the narration of the Plaintiff, the total monies she gave to the Defendant amounted to GH¢5,830. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that when they went to the house of the assemblyman, the Defendant stated that she made an income of GH¢22,800 with the monies she gave to her. In support of her case the Plaintiff called PW1, Honourable Haruna Abdul Karim to testify. He stated that the Plaintiff reported the matter to him upon which he invited the Defendant. They all calculated the monies Plaintiff gave to the Defendant and arrived at the amount of GH¢7,000. He later reported the matter to the Kpandai Police after which the Defendant promised to pay GH¢3,500 as part payment of the monies she owes the Plaintiff. She however only brought GH¢1,000 which he later gave back to the Defendant. PW2, Baki Linda also testified in support of the case of the Plaintiff. She stated that the Plaintiff proposed to her to invest in the cassava business. She agreed and gave GH¢2,000 to the Plaintiff to be given to the Defendant. She later called the Defendant who confirmed receipt of the said money. The Defendant informed her that her capital and profit amounted to GH¢4,000. The Plaintiff also called PW3, Solomon Kwame Kabanda to testify in support of her case. The evidence of PW3 essentially was that in March, 2024 he inquired from the Defendant how much money she took from her mother, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant replied that she has been able to purchase 30 bags of cassava with the monies given her. In May, 2024 he again inquired from the Defendant how much cassava she has bought for the Plaintiff and she answered 52 bags. Out of the 52 bags of cassava, 30 bags were from the Plaintiff’s personal monies she gave her; 12 bags from the monies she took from PW2, Baki Linda; 6 bags from the monies Plaintiff took from Lardi and 4 bags from the monies Plaintiff took from Fati. Page 10 of 26 According to PW3, he and the Plaintiff later reported the matter to the Assemblyman where the Defendant admitted receiving the total of GH¢7,000 from the Plaintiff. The matter was again reported to the Police and he advised that the Defendant pays the money in installment. She promised to pay GH¢3,500 within two weeks but only sent GH¢1,000 to the Assemblyman. I must reiterate that the burden is solely on the Plaintiff who claims that the total amount of monies he gave to the Defendant for the purchase of cassava amounted to GH¢7,000. Failure to do so, the Plaintiff’s claim must of necessity fail. From the evidence led by the Plaintiff and her witnesses, when the parties met at the house of PW1, the Defendant admitted that the total monies she received from the Plaintiff amounted to GH¢7,000. This was also the testimony of PW1 himself. According to him, when the parties met and he narrated the Plaintiff’s case to the Defendant, the Defendant indicated that she could not tell the total monies she received from the Plaintiff since she took the monies in bits. The parties made their calculations and arrived at the figure, GH¢7,000. Testifying as to what transpired at the house of PW1, PW3 stated the Defendant admitted she was able to purchase a total of 52 bags of cassava with the monies she took from the Plaintiff. The Defendant denied this piece of evidence during her cross-examination of PW3 and stated that PW3 went to the house of PW1 with a paper containing some writing and read same to PW1 in English which she did not understand. He again went to the police commander’s house with the said piece of paper containing the said writings. In her evidence in chief the Plaintiff tendered in evidence Exhibit A which seems to be an estimate on the number of bags of cassava bought. The writings contained on Exhibit A are as follows: Page 11 of 26 Mom = 30 bags (12,000) Linda = 12 bags (4,800) Lardi = 6 bags (2,400) Fati = 4 bags (1,600) The day this money was sent to me I told Lardi, Fati and Linda that I am going to cash the money to them, but when I went I did not get the money. When I went they said the money was not sent into their account. That is all what is contained on Exhibit A. There is no indication of who prepared the said document, where it was prepared and also not signed by any of the parties and or their witnesses. The court however admitted the document into evidence for its worth since the law is that the fact that a document is self-serving does not render it inadmissible or valueless. Where the said estimate is denied by the opponent, as in the instant case, the proponent of the estimate must adduce further evidence of proof of same. See the case of EBENEZER OBENG DOMPREH v ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI GHANA LTD, Suit No. H1/222/2021, judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 8th June, 2022, where the court held per V. D. Ofoe JA held as follows: Declaring a document as self-serving and on that basis alone rejecting it as valueless will be a questionable approach in assessing evidence. That a document is self-serving alone is not sufficient reason for rejecting it as document without value. Indeed in the Agbosu & Others vrs Kotey & others (2003-2005) 1 GLR 685 where a statutory declaration was found to be self-serving the court stated that such a document is of no probative value where the facts contained in them are challenged or disputed and that the statutory declaration contained the facts which may be used to prove their title but it did not per se, whether the document was registered or not. Page 12 of 26 The court continued Unless it is his contention that the defendant’s compensation assessment processes concluded and accepted to pay him all the estimates in exhibit E and therefore the defendant is estopped from denying liability for the whole estimated amount, the plaintiff has a duty to convince this court to order payment of the whole of the amount on exhibit E to him. The Defendant has denied knowledge of the said estimates as contained in Exhibit A. She further denied admitting she took the total of GH¢7,000 from the Plaintiff. Thus, despite tendering Exhibit A, the Plaintiff must lead credible and admissible evidence to prove that the Defendant admitted to owing her the monies as contained in her Exhibit A. The question then is, has the Plaintiff been able to prove that the monies she gave to the Defendant amounted to GH¢7,000 and that she used the said monies to procure 52 bags of cassava worth GH¢20,800 as per Exhibit A? PW1 testified that when both parties met in his house, some calculations were done by them and they both arrived at the amount of GH¢7,000 being the sum of monies received by the Defendant from the Plaintiff. When asked as to how they made the calculations, PW1 stated that the Defendant admitted buying 30 bags worth of cassava at the cost of GH¢230 per bag with the monies given her by the Plaintiff. Multiplying 30 by 230 therefore amounted to GH¢7,000. The Defendant however denied this and insisted that these figures were what PW3 wrote down by himself and mentioned to PW1. This is what transpired during the cross- examination of PW1 by the Defendant: Q. Tell the court how we calculated to the total of Gh₡7,000.00 Page 13 of 26 A. When I questioned you on how much you owe the plaintiff, you could not mention the total figure. You stated that you took the moneys in installments to buy bags of cassava. So I questioned you how much a bag of cassava cost as at the time you took the money to purchase the cassava and also the number of bags you bought out of the money you took from the plaintiff. You stated that you purchased 30 bags of peeled cassava. The plaintiff also claimed that you took money from her to buy 35 bags of cassava. I told the plaintiff that we should go by what you said which is the thirty (30) bags. You told me that a bag of cassava as at the time was Gh₡230.00 so we multiplied 30 by 230 and we got the amount of Gh₡7,000.00. Q. That is not true. It was the son of the plaintiff who did his calculation from home and gave same to you when we met in your house. We did not do any calculations in your house. A. We did the calculation in my house. I am only telling the court what transpired between you, the plaintiff, her son and me as the assembly member. As to whatever transactions went on between you and the plaintiff, I am not aware. PW3 also testified and insisted that the calculations were done in the house of PW1. He stated that he only went to the house of PW1 with a pen and while the Defendant was speaking he took the package of a light bulb and wrote the figures. He stated during his cross-examination by the Defendant as follows: Q. You went to the assemblyman with a paper and read the content of it to the assemblyman. He then said the issue was beyond him so the matter be referred to the police. You were still with the paper at the police station as well as at the commander’s house. Page 14 of 26 A. I only went to the house of the assemblyman with a pen. While you were speaking I picked the package box of a bulb and started writing all that you were saying. That was the paper I brought to the police station which you are referring to. Q. You invited me to the house of your mother the plaintiff. When I came, you were already with pieces of papers. We then proceeded to the house of the assemblyman and you both spoke in English which I did not understand what you were saying. A police man then came and conveyed me to the police station. There the content of the piece of paper was read to me. A. I wrote all what you said to me at the house of the assembly man. I was not present when the content of the piece of paper was read to you. From the evidence, PW1 claimed that both parties made their calculations in his house. On his part, PW3 insisted that Exhibit A was prepared in the house of PW1. On her part however, the Plaintiff during her cross-examination by the Defendant admitted that the said document was not prepared at the house of PW1. According to her, it was after their meeting with PW1 that she and her son met the Defendant in her house to account to them. She then mentioned the number of bags she bought with the monies given her which her son wrote down. This is what transpired during the cross-examination of the Plaintiff by the Defendant: Q. The Assemblyman is not aware of the document you tendered (Estimates) as Exhibit A. It was prepared by your son after our discussions at the Assemblyman’s house. A. It is true the document was not prepared at the house of the Assemblyman. It was after meeting at the Assemblyman’s house that I came to your house with my son Page 15 of 26 and we sat you down to account to us. You then mentioned the figures which my son wrote down on the paper. Thus contrary to the testimony of PW3 that Exhibit A was prepared at the house of PW1, the Plaintiff herself admitted that same was prepared in the Defendant’s house after their meeting with PW1. It is clear therefore that PW3 was not truthful to the court when he insisted the said documents/estimates were prepared at the house of PW1. It is noted that neither PW1, PW2 nor PW3 were able to categorically testify to the exact amount Plaintiff gave to the Defendant. On his part, PW1 testified that the Defendant admitted in his house that she was able to purchase 30 bags of cassava for the Plaintiff at the cost of GH¢230 per bag. Multiplying the number of bags against the cost per bag therefore meant the Plaintiff gave the Defendant the amount of GH¢7,000. As for PW2, her evidence was essentially that the Plaintiff took an amount of GH¢2,000 from her and gave to the Defendant for the purchase of cassava. This the Defendant did not deny. On his part, when PW3 was asked by the Defendant as to how much money his mother, the Plaintiff told him she gave to her, his answer was that at the said meeting at the house of PW1, he did not ask the Defendant how much money she took from the Plaintiff. He only asked how many bags of cassava she was able to purchase with the money given her by the Plaintiff. This was what transpired during the cross-examination of PW3 by the Plaintiff: Q. How much did your mother tell you she gave to me, for which I stated I purchased 30 bags of cassava? A. I did not ask you the amount my mother gave. I asked you how many bags of cassava you purchased with the money and you mentioned 30 bags. Page 16 of 26 Q. You said your mother never told you the amount she gave me. How then could you have asked me the number of bags I have purchased with the money given me by the plaintiff. A. I do not know how much my mother gave you to buy the cassava. I only asked you the number of bags you bought and you mentioned 30 bags. This was before the assembly man and Police Commander. As I have indicted, all the Plaintiff’s witnesses especially PW1 and PW3 have not mentioned specifically that they were present when the Plaintiff remitted monies totaling GH¢7,000 to the Defendant. All they rely on is a transaction that went on at the house of PW1 where they claim the Defendant admitted that the monies given to her by the Plaintiff summed up to GH¢7,000. Meanwhile, the evidence of the Plaintiff herself on the monies she gave the Defendant summed up to GH¢5,830. According to PW2, the Defendant informed her that she was able to make proceeds of GH¢4,000 on her GH¢2,000 given her through the Plaintiff. The Defendant denied admitting this fact and neither the Plaintiff herself or her witnesses corroborated this allegation. Exhibit A does not also support her case in anyway because on the said Exhibit, supposed it is of any probative value, the number of bags indicated as owed to her, PW3, is 12 valued GH¢4,800 which is contrary to her own case. On a consideration of all the evidence, I find that the evidence of the Plaintiff does not tally with her claims. She is unable to say emphatically how much money she gave to the Defendant, and how much she received from the Defendant as proceeds. From her evidence, she mentioned the monies she personally gave to the Defendant as well as those she took from other persons for the Defendant. All of that summed up to GH¢5,830 contrary to the GH¢7,000 she claims she gave to the Defendant. That aside, the evidence reveals that on some two occasions the Defendant brought her some proceeds and she gave the Defendant her share of those proceeds as well as paying back some of the monies she took. Specifically, the Plaintiff Page 17 of 26 admitted receiving GH¢3,600 from the Defendant as proceeds. She also admitted that the Defendant brought her the monies she took from Fati. She however added that she gave the Defendant further funds for the purchase of the cassava but was not sure whether it was GH¢1,600. This is what transpired during the cross-examination of the Defendant by the Plaintiff: Q. I am putting it to you that the total monies you gave me was Gh₡1,200.00. Then when I called for money, you took an amount of Gh₡700.00 from Lardi and gave me. When later you called that I should bring you the money, I brought you GH₡3,600.00 A. That is not true. You brought me money although I cannot recollect the exact amount you brought me. It seems you only brought an amount of Gh₡2,200.00 and I gave you an amount of Gh₡200.00. At the time sister Lardi was present and she said the money should remain with you to keep buying the cassava. So, I gave back the said money to you. Q. It is correct Lardi gave you Gh₡700.00 and Fati also gave you Gh₡700.00 to be given to me. I however paid the said monies to you summing up to the Gh₡3,600.00 I earlier on mentioned. Sister Lardi was not present when I gave the said Gh₡3,600.00 to you. It was later your sister in-law gave you Gh₡2,000.00, which you gave to me to buy her cassava. A. It is true no one was present when you gave me the money – the amount of Gh₡3,600.00. However, afterwards I went with you to sister Fati to give her the Gh₡700.00 which I borrowed from her. She then gave you an amount of Gh₡100.00 and I added some money to buy her more cassava. I cannot recall the exact amount but I think it is Gh₡1,600.00. Page 18 of 26 Q. I initially brought you the money you borrowed from sister Lardi before bringing you that of sister Fati. I did not bring both on the same day. A. It was the same day. From her answers, the Plaintiff admits the Defendant brought her the proceeds of GH¢3,600 including the monies she took from Fati and Lardi. Why then did the Plaintiff, in her evidence in chief recounts these monies as part of the monies owed to her by the Defendant since she admits the Defendant has repaid them? Was it that after she brought the said monies additional funds was given to her by either Fati or Lardi? The answer to this will be revealed after a consideration of the case put forth by the Defendant. On her part, the case of the Defendant has been that the total amount she owes the Plaintiff is GH¢4,800. She stated that she and the Plaintiff are into the cassava business and on two occasions she brought the proceeds to the Plaintiff which they shared. It was on the third occasion the buyers picked up the cassava from her without paying. By her evidence in chief, the Defendant testified she first sent the Plaintiff proceeds of GH¢3,000 of which Plaintiff gave her GH¢200 as her share. The Plaintiff later gave her GH¢1,500 on which she brought proceeds of GH¢2,100. It was then the Plaintiff told her the said monies were from Fati. She took the monies to Fati who also gave her GH¢100 as her share of the proceeds. Fati took GH¢200 and gave the remaining GH¢1,800 to her to buy more cassava. The Plaintiff later took GH¢2,000 from her daughter in-law and gave same to her. With the new capital of GH¢3,800 she was able to buy 13 bags of cassava at the cost of GH¢300 per bag but one Enoch picked them up and has not paid. According to her, the Plaintiff collected firstly, an amount of GH¢300 for her son in school and secondly, an amount of GH¢250 which she sent to her house and gave same to one of the Plaintiff’s sister-wives. When she was asked under cross-examination how much monies she collected from the Plaintiff, the Defendant answered as follows: Page 19 of 26 Q. What is the total sum of money you took from me? A. You took GH₡2,000.00 from your daughter in addition to the earlier GH₡1,800.00 you gave to me. With this capital I realized an amount of Gh₡ 5,050.00 after buying and selling the cassava. You called me to bring you GH₡250.00 which I gave to one lady and you confirmed receipt of same. During the period I was unable to pay the money to you, you called that your son in school needed money so I gave you GH₡300.00 from my own monies. I was of the view that after I am paid the money, I will remind you to repay me the Gh₡300.00. That is why I did not include it in the GH₡4,800.00. That is the amount I owe you. Q. I am putting it to you that that is not true A. That is what I know. We have been in this business for a while. I have been bringing you the proceeds for us to share. What I know is what I told this court. You can also tell the court the other side of it. Q. I only took Gh₡300.00 from you. I did not collect GH₡250.00 from you. A. Did you ever call me that you needed GH₡250.00 and I brought the money but did not meet you home? I gave the money to one fair woman whom you live with in the same house. I later called you and you confirmed you have received the money. Q. We are three women in the house. Me, one fair tall woman, and another who is short. Which of them did you give the money? Page 20 of 26 A. I gave the money to the fair tall woman. The said woman owns a shop just behind your house. In addition to the oral testimonies by the parties, it came to light during the trial that statements were obtained from both parties when the matter was reported to the Kpandai Police. The court therefore ordered for copies of the said statements to be procured so as to aid the court in determining the issues between the parties. The said statements are essentially the same as their evidence in chief only that in her statement, the Plaintiff stated that the Defendant called to inform her she made a profit of GH¢6,050 on the monies she gave her. On her part the Defendant maintained that she only owes the Plaintiff GH¢4,800. From the respective statements to the police including that of PW3, nowhere did the Defendant admit owing the Plaintiff GH¢7,000. I therefore find the evidence of PW1 that the Defendant admitted to owing the Plaintiff the amount of GH¢7,000 at the police station false. Weighing the two sides of the story as presented by the parties, I am inclined to believe the story of the Defendant over that of the Plaintiff. This is particularly so because it is the Plaintiff who bears the burden to prove her claim on the balance of probabilities that indeed, the monies she gave to the Defendant sum up to GH¢7,000. In my opinion, the Plaintiff has failed to do so. Throughout all her evidence, the monies Plaintiff claim she remitted to the Defendant did not sum up to GH¢7,000 as claimed by her. Even though she called three witnesses in support of her case, none of them was able to testify affirmatively of been present when the said monies were given to the Defendant. All that the Plaintiff and her witnesses rely on is an admission they claim the Defendant made at the house of PW1 that she owes the Plaintiff GH¢7,000. This was vehemently denied by the Defendant who claim she only admitted to owing the Plaintiff GH¢4,800 and not GH¢7,000. Page 21 of 26 Considering the evidence of PW1 and PW3, I am of the view that their evidence does not support the case of the Plaintiff who called them in any way. While the Plaintiff claim the amount is GH¢7,000, they claim the Defendant admitted to buying 30 bags of cassava with the money she collected from the Plaintiff. These 30 bags, according to PW1 was purchased at the cost of GH¢230 each and so multiplying 30 by 230 amount to GH¢7,000. On his part however and as per Exhibit A which he claim he is the author, PW3 indicated that the 30 bags of cassava amounted to GH¢12,000. Meanwhile both PW1 and PW3 were not able to say how much money the Plaintiff gave to the Defendant for the purchase of these 30 bags of cassava they claim the Defendant bought for the Plaintiff. It is trite learning that a party does not prove his case by the number or quantity of witness called by him or her. Rather, it is the quality of the witnesses that matters and whether their testimonies prove the ingredient of the claim, defence or charge in issue before the court. See the case of GLIGAH v THE REPUBLIC [2010] SCGLR 870 where the court held per Dotse JSC as follows: We have always held the view that in establishing the standard of proof required in a civil or criminal trial, it is not the quantity of witnesses that a party upon whom the burden of proof rests calls to testify that is important, but the quality of the witnesses called and whether at the end of the day the witnesses called by the party have succeeded in proving the ingredients required in a particular case. In other words, does the evidence led merit the standard of proof required in a particular case? If it does, then it will be a surplusage to call additional witnesses to repeat virtually the same point or seek to corroborate evidence that has already been corroborated. Thus even though the Plaintiff called three witnesses in support of her case, I find that their testimonies could not affirmatively prove that the Plaintiff gave a total of GH¢7,000 to the Defendant. Though the Defendant called no witness in support of her case, I am more inclined Page 22 of 26 to believe her story that the amount remaining owed to the Plaintiff by her is GH¢4,800. I find from the evidence that the Plaintiff and the defendant have been trading in the cassava business. I find from the evidence that on two occasions the Defendant brought proceeds to the Plaintiff which they shared. I find the case of the Defendant more probable as it was not denied by the Plaintiff that after she brought the amount of GH¢2,100 to Fati, she in turn gave her GH¢1,800 to reinvest in the business. The Plaintiff further procured GH¢2,000 from PW2 and gave same to the Defendant. I find from the evidence that in total the Plaintiff gave to the Defendant cash of GH¢3,800 to purchase the cassava. According to the Defendant, she was able to procure 13 bags of cassava worth GH¢5,050 with this money. The Plaintiff admits receiving GH¢250 from the Defendant for her son in school. According to the Defendant, deducting this GH¢250 from the amount of GH¢5,050, the Plaintiff’s money with her stood at GH¢4,800. As for the figures contained in Exhibit A, the least said about it, the better. As I indicated earlier, Exhibit A was not signed by any of the parties neither does it indicate who prepared it. In my understanding, a party can only be bound by a deed prepared or executed by him. In order to bind the Defendant to Exhibit A therefore, there must be proof that it was executed or prepared by her. PW3 testified that he prepared the said document. It was not however not signed by him or the Defendant so as to constitute an admission of the facts contained therein. In any case, I am of the view that no evidence has been led to prove that the Defendant indeed was able to procure those bags of cassava with the monies given to her. To my mind, the figures contained in Exhibit A are inflated and so unreasonable that no reasonable mind could base its decision on same. Granted that the Plaintiff gave the Defendant GH¢7,000, how could that yield 30 bags of cassava worth GH¢12,000? How could the GH¢2,000 given to the Defendant by PW2 through the Plaintiff all of a sudden yield GH¢4,800 and the GH¢750 given by Lardi yield GH¢2,400? No evidence has been led by the Plaintiff to prove these claims by her apart from insisting that the Defendant admitted to same at the house of PW1, a claim which is denied by the Defendant. Page 23 of 26 Consequently, I find that the Plaintiff has not been able to prove that she gave a total sum of GH¢7,000 to the Defendant. I however find from the evidence that she remitted a total of GH¢3,800 to the Defendant with which the Defendant realised an income of GH¢5,050. There is evidence that the Plaintiff collected GH¢250 from her monies with the Defendant. She however denied receiving any GH¢300 from the Defendant as claimed by her. The Defendant who claims she gave the said money to one of the Plaintiff’s sister-wives did not call the said person to testify in support of her case. Her claim therefore that the Plaintiff received GH¢300 from her therefore stands unproved. That notwithstanding, from the evidence the amount of money Plaintiff has with the Defendant stood at GH¢4,800. Even though the evidence indicates that the Defendant is given some paltry sums of the proceeds after she sends them to the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not counterclaim for a share of the proceeds, neither did she adduce evidence as to any agreed sum of money or percentage. I therefore find that the Defendant owes the Plaintiff the amount of GH¢4,800 which she is liable to pay to her. By her relief 2, the Plaintiff claims interest of some GH¢1,300 on the amount of GH¢2,200 the defendant used to purchase cassava and made profit of GH¢1,300. I am unable to understand the basis for this claim by the Plaintiff. From her evidence in chief, the sequence of monies she gave to the Defendant for the purchase of cassava is: GH¢1,500; GH¢30; GH¢750; GH¢750; GH¢2,000 and GH¢800. All of these summed up to GH¢5,830. On what basis is she therefore claiming for profit of GH¢1,300 on some GH¢2,200 she gave to the Defendant? In my view this relief has no basis and not supported by the evidence on the record. Same is therefore dismissed. On relief 3, the Plaintiff claims a share of the profit of GH¢15,600 which the Defendant made on the GH¢7,000 she took from her and used same to purchase some 52 bags of cassava at a Page 24 of 26 cost of GH¢300 per bag. I have already found that the total amount of monies remaining owned to the Plaintiff by the Defendant is GH¢4,800 and not GH¢7,000 as claimed by the Plaintiff. The issue then is, has the Plaintiff been able to prove that the Defendant made a profit of GH¢15,600 on the GH¢7,000 she claim she gave to the Defendant? By her own evidence in chief, the monies she gave to the Defendant amounted to GH¢5,830. This included the monies she took from her friend, Fati and sister, Lardi. Also included in this amount is the money she took from PW2 and gave to the Defendant. By what calculation therefore is the Plaintiff now claiming that the total bags of cassava bought by the Defendant with these monies was 52? Granted that the Defendant was able to purchase 52 bags of cassava with the amount of GH¢5,830 given to her by the Plaintiff, to my mind it is highly impossible to claim that one could make an income of GH¢15,600 with a capital of GH¢5,830. Calculating the profit margins as revealed by the evidence, it is seen that when the Defendant was given GH¢1,500 by the Plaintiff, she brought an income of GH¢2,100. This means the Defendant made a profit of GH¢600. Also according to the Defendant, with a capital of GH¢3,800 given to her by the Plaintiff, she was able to make GH¢5,050. The expected profit therefore on the sum of GH¢3,800 is GH¢1,250. From the evidence, the profit margin realised is not double the capital, not to talk of triple of the capital. I therefore find it strange for the Plaintiff to claim that the Defendant was able to make an income of GH¢15,600 on the capital of GH¢5,830 given to her. This relief is also dismissed. The parties have not been able to testify to the dates the monies were paid and when they became due for payment. It is however noted that the Defendant on her first day of appearing in court admitted to owing the Defendant the amount of GH¢4,800. This was on 20/05/24. In my view it is reasonable to start the calculation of interest on the said amount from that date. Consequently, it is ordered that the Defendant pays to the Plaintiff the amount of GH¢4,800 with interest calculated at the prevailing commercial bank rate from 20th May, 2024 till date of final payment. I award cost of GH¢500 against the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff. Page 25 of 26 H/W GODSON ETSE KUMADO Page 26 of 26