Quick Credit V Wahab (A2/191/24) [2024] GHADC 664 (28 November 2024)

INTHEDISTIRCTCOURTHELDATPAKYINO.2ONTHURSDAYTHE28THDAYOF NOVEMBER,2024BEFOREHERWORSHIPDORANSIAHJACKSON(ESQ.)THEDISTRICT COURTMAGISTRATE SUITNO.A2/191/24 QUICKCREDIT&INV.MICROCREDIT OF(OSUDANQUAHCIRCLERINGRDE, - PLAINTIFF CITIZENKOFIHOUSENUUMOGOA STREET,ACCRAGA-035-4662) V. AMINUWAHAB OFKOTWI-ASHANTI - DEFENDANT CORAM:HERWORSHIPDORANSIAHJACKSONESQ. JUDGMENT Introduction In its summary of subject matter of claim as stated in its Writ, Plaintiff seeks an order from the Honourable Court to recover an amount of Two Thousand and Ninety Cedis (GH¢2,090.00) being the outstanding balance of the loan facility which the Defendant procured on or about 31/01/2024 and which the Defendant promised to pay on 01/5/2024 but has failed to pay despite repeated demands.Wherefore,PlaintiffclaimsagainsttheDefendantforthefollowingreliefs: a. Recovery of the cash sum of two thousand and ninety Cedis (GH¢2,090.00) being the outstandingbalanceoftheloanfacilitytheDefendantprocuredfromthePlaintiff 1 b. Interestonthesaidamount c. Cost d. Anyotherrelief(s)asmaydeemfittothehonourablecourt. TheDefendantwasservedwithPlaintiff’sWritofSummonsyethewasabsentincourton27/8/2024 when the suit was called for hearing. Plaintiff’s representative was therefore called upon to prove theirclaimpursuanttoorder25rule1ofC.I.59. Trialcommences. Issue(s)fordetermination The issue for determination in this suit is whether or not Defendant is indebted to Plaintiff to the tuneofGH2,090.00. Theburdenofproof ThisbeingaCivilSuit,therulesofevidenceapplyandtheonusisonthePlaintifftoproveitsclaim onthebalanceofprobabilities.Seesections11(4)andsection12oftheEvidenceAct,NRCD323. It has been held in holding 5 of Takoradi Flour Mills v. Samir Faris Takoradi Flour [2005-2006] SCGLR883@884that“itissufficienttosaythatthisbeingacivilsuit,therulesofevidencerequirethatthe Plaintiffproducessufficientevidencetomakeouthisclaimonabalanceofprobabilities,asdefinedinS.12(2) oftheEvidenceDecree,1975(NRCD323).Inassessingthebalanceofprobabilities,alltheevidence,beitthat of thePlaintiffor Defendant,must beconsidered andtheparty inwhosefavour the balancetilts isthe person whosecaseisthemoreprobableoftherivalversionsanddeservingofafavourableverdict…”. 2 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 doesnotneedtoproveanything;thePlaintiffwhotooktheDefendanttocourthastoprovewhatheisentitled 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,thenhe hasthedutytohelphisowncasebyadducingbeforethecourtsuchfacts orevidence thatwill inducethedeterminationtobemadeinhisfavour.Thelogicalsequeltothisisthatifheleadsnosuchfactsor 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 evidenceonrecord,thePlaintiffmaywinandDefendantmaylose.Suchlossmaybebroughtaboutbydefault onthepartoftheDefendant”. This court has adverted its mind to Order 25 rule 1(2)(a) of the District Court Rules, 2009 (C.I.59) which clothes this court with jurisdiction to allow a Plaintiff who attends court to prove his claim anddismissthecounterclaimifanyofaDefendantwhofailstoattendcourtwhenthecaseiscalled. EvidenceofPlaintiff’srepresentative Plaintiff’s representative testified by himself and called no witnesses. He also tendered into evidence 2 documents namely loan agreement paper marked exhibit “A” and loan payment transactionmarketexhibit“B”. In his evidence in chief on 13/8/2024, the Plaintiff’s representative stated as follows: I am called Emmanuel Owusu, I am a sales executive officer at Quick credit and I know the Defendant in this suit. The Defendant requested for a loan amount of GH¢2,000.00. He was assessed by Emmanuel Owusu and he explained to him that the loan was fixed at 12% interest rate per month. The loan was disbursed to him on 31/01/2024. The loan plus the interest in all will amount to GH¢2,720.00. 3 He was supposed to pay a weekly installment of GH¢210.00. After theWrit was served, hemade a totalpaymentofGH¢1,045.00leavinghisoutstandingbalanceatGH¢1,675.00.Anagreementpaper was made which was endorsed by the Defendant and he having a copy as well. I also have his paymentstatementonourdatabase.Iwouldliketotenderthemintoevidence. The Defendant chose to stay away and not participate in this trial leaving this court with only the evidenceofthePlaintifftoevaluate. It has been held in holding 6 of Fori v. Ayirebi (1966) GLR 627 that “when a party had made an averment and that averment is not denied, no issues joined and no evidence need be led on that averment. Similarly,whereapartyhadgivenevidenceofmaterialfactandhewasnotcrossexaminedupon,heneednot callfurtherevidenceofthatfact”. Even though Plaintiff’s evidence is the only evidence this court will consider, the court must consider whether its case is probable or not in compliance with the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323. SeeTakoradiFlourMillsv.SamirFarisTakoradiFloursupra. This court has had a critical look at the evidence of Plaintiff’s representative as well as exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ and in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary accepts Plaintiff’s representative’s evidence to be more probable that theDefendant is indebted to Plaintiff in the sum of GH¢1,675.00 beingtheoutstandingbalanceoftheloanfacilityhereceivedfromPlaintiffasaprovenfact. In Alimatu v.Sadia[2020] DLHC16502, itwas statedthat“These pieces ofevidence fromthe …. Stood unchallenged as the Defendant failed to avail himself the opportunity granted her to cross examine the witness.Thecourtthereforeacceptstheevidenceasaprovenfact”. 4 As, was stated in holding 3 of Takoradi 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 EvidenceDecree(Act)1975NRCD323” In the instant suit, the credibility of the Plaintiff’s representative is not in issue. Accordingly, this courtfindsthecaseofthePlaintiffmoreprobablethannotandherebyentersjudgmentinitsfavour andagainsttheDefendantfortherecoveryofthesumofGH¢1,675.00.Interestistobecalculatedon thesumofGH¢1,675.00from01/5/2024attheprevailingbankinterestratetilldateoffinalpayment. CostofGH¢200.00isalsoawardedagainsttheDefendantandinfavourofPlaintiff. Insummary,thePlaintiffistorecoverfromtheDefendant: a. ThesumofGH¢1,675.00. b. Interest on the said sum of GH¢1,675.00 from 01/5/2024 at the prevailing bank Interest rate tilldateoffinalpayment. c. CostisassessedatGH¢200.00 DORANSIAHJACKSONESQ DISTRICTCOURTMAGISTRATE 5