Quick Credit & Investment Micro Credit v Adjei (A2/35/24) [2024] GHADC 693 (4 December 2024)

**IN THE DISTRICT COURT, MANKESSIM IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF GHANA, ON WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH OF DECEMBER****2024, BEFORE HER WORSHIP, BERNICE MAWUSI KPODO ESQUIRE, SITTING AS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE** __**SUIT NO. A2/35/24**__ **BETWEEN** **QUICK CREDIT & INVESTMENT MICRO CREDIT PLAINTIFF** OSU DANQUAH CIRCLE RING E, CITIZEN KOFI HOUSE NUUMO GOA STREET, ACCRA GA-035-4662 **AND** **AGNES ADJEI DEFENDANT** MANKESSIM-CENTRAL **TIME:****10:15****AM** **PLAINTIFF****REPRESENTED BY EDWIN HAGAN PRESENT** **DEFENDANT PRESENT** **JOSEPH NANA WILSON ESQ. FOR KWADWO DEI-KWARTENG ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF PRESENT** **NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE****DEFENDANT** **JUDGMENT** The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant on 19 February 2024 for: a. Recovery of the cash sum of Two Thousand nine hundred and Twenty-Eight Ghana Cedis (GH¢2,938.00) being the outstanding balance of the loan facility the which the Defendant, procured on or about 15th September, 2023 and which the defendant promised to pay on 15th December, 2023 but has failed to pay despite repeated demands. b. Interest on the said amount at the prevailing bank rate from 15th September, 023 till ate of finalpayment. c. Cost d. Such further order(s) as this Honourale Court may deem fit. The Plaintiff’s claim, as outlined in its Writ, seeks a judicial order from the Honourable Court to recover an outstanding balance of Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-Eight Ghana Cedis (GH¢2,938.00). This amount represents the remaining balance of a loan facility that Defendant obtained on or around 15 September 2023. The loan terms stipulated that the Defendant was obligated to repay the full amount by 15 December 2023. However, despite the Plaintiff's persistent demands for payment, the Defendant has failed to meet this obligation. Therefore, the Plaintiff is requesting the Court's intervention to resolve this matter and recover the owed amount. On the 26 November 2024, judgment on admission was granted on the admitted sum of GH¢1600.00 by the defendant, thus the current writeup is on the reminder of GH¢1338.00. **ISSUE** The issue for determination in this suit is whether or not Defendant is indebted to Plaintiff on the remainder of GH¢1338.00. **ANALYSIS** As this is a civil suit, the rules of evidence are applicable, placing the burden on the Plaintiff to substantiate their claim on the balance of probabilities. **See sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act,** **NRCD 323.** **See also the case of Re Ashalley Botwe Lands; Adjetey Agbosu & Ors v. Kotei & Ors. [2003 -2004] SCGLR 420 @ 425**, where the apex court held thus, _“... A litigant who is a Defendant in_ _a civil suit does not need to prove anything; the Plaintiff who took the Defendant to court has to prove_ _what he is entitled to from the Defendant. At the same time, if the court has to make a determination of_ _a fact or of an issue and that determination cannot be made on nothing. If the Defendant desires the_ _determination to be made in his favour, then he has the duty to help his own case by adducing before the_ _court such facts or evidence that will induce the determination to be made in his favour. The logical_ _sequel to this is that if he leads no such facts or evidence, the court will be left with no choice but evaluate_ _the entire case on the basis of the evidence before the court which may turn out to be only the evidence_ _of the Plaintiff. If the court chooses to believe the only evidence on record, the Plaintiff may win and_ _Defendant may lose. Such loss may be brought about by default on the part of the Defendant”._ As was stated in holding 3 of T**akoradi Flour Mills v. Samir Faris Takoradi Flour [2005-2006]** **SCGLR 883** , “ _a tribunal of fact can decide an issue on the evidence of only one party. A bare assertion_ _on oath by a single witness might in the proper circumstance of a case be enough to form the basis of a_ _judicial adjudication. The essential thing is that the witness is credible by the standards set in Section_ _80(2) of the Evidence Decree (Act) 1975 NRCD 323”_ _ _ The plaintiff’s representative provided independent testimony without calling witnesses. He submitted a document, referred to as the loan payment transaction, marked as Exhibit A. The defendant also lead evidence without calling a witness On 26 November 2024, during the plaintiff’s representative's testimony, the details of the claim were presented. In the matter presented before the court, the plaintiff's witness provided detailed testimony regarding the financial transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. The witness confirmed that the total loan amount extended to the defendant was GH¢4080.00, with the defendant making a partial repayment of GH¢1142.00. Consequently, the outstanding balance owed by the defendant is calculated to be GH¢2938.00. He testified that the loan was disbursed to the defendant on 15 September 2023. It was noted that the defendant had made a total of four payments to the plaintiff; however, the expected number of transactions was thirteen. Therefore, based on the total transaction count, there are nine outstanding payments yet to be made. Each transaction represents a weekly payment of GH¢314.00. Additionally, according to Exhibit A, the defendant has defaulted on making timely payments as stipulated. The witness testified that it is critical that all payments made by the defendant are accurately reflected in Exhibit A, confirming the outstanding balance for the defendant to settle with the plaintiff remains at GH¢2938.00. The defendant stated that it was true she had obtained a loan from the plaintiff, which she acknowledged she owed. However, when the plaintiff claimed that she was owed GH¢4,000.00, the defendant was unaware that this amount included the interest. The defendant expressed a plea for consideration regarding the interest, citing that she had experienced an accident which hindered her ability to sell as she used to. From the evidence, the defendant has admitted the remainder of the sum GH¢1338 owed. An admission, as defined by **Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition),** is _“a voluntary acknowledgement of the existence of facts relevant to an adversary’s case”._ Thus, in the case of **Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa & Anor V. Jake Obetsebi Lamptey & Anor [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 16**, the Supreme Court held that _“where a matter is admitted, proof is dispensed with”._ In such a case, once it is established that there are unequivocal admissions by the defendant, the plaintiff’s case succeeds. **CONCLUSION** In sum, I hereby enter judgment in favour of the plaintiff as follows: 1. Recovery of the reminder of the said loan amount of GH¢1338.00. 2. Interest should run after a month of non-payment of the amount in (1) at the prevailing bank rate from 5th January 2025 till the date of final payment. No order as to cost. **(SGD.)** **HER WORSHIP BERNICE MAWUSI KPODO** **(DISTRICT MAGISTRATE)** 3