Delali v Bubu (G/AC/DG/A2/102/23) [2024] GHADC 755 (7 November 2024)

CORAM: IN THE DISTRICT COURT, ACHIMOTA – ACCRA HELD BEFORE HIS WORSHIP PRINCE OSEI OWUSU SITTING AS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 7TH NOVEMBER, 2024 SUIT NUMBER: G/AC/DG/A2/102/23 DELALI SAMUEL DUN - PLAINTIFF (DOING BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF MAXSPEED MICROCREDIT ENTERPRISE) OF ACHIMOTA VRS. JULIANA BUBU - DEFENDANT OF ACHIMOTA ACCRA ............................................................................................................................. TIME: 12:35PM PARTIES PRESENT JUDGMENT The Plaintiff originally instituted this suit on 10/7/23 against the Defendant, for the following reliefs; P age 1 | 6 a) Recovery of GH¢ 15,876.00 being the loan balance. b) Cost and interest since November 26, 2020. It is the Plaintiff’s case per his affidavit that the Defendant requested for a loan of GH¢ 10,000.00 with an interest of 20% payable within three months. Plaintiff stated that the Defendant has defaulted in the payment of the loan bringing accumulated figure to GH¢ 15,876.00. In his statement of defence filed on 9/5/24, the Defendant averred that he took a loan of GH¢ 1,000.00 from the Plaintiff. She stated that she started paying the loan diligently until thieves broke into her shop. Defendant averred that she has paid total of GH¢ 9,900.00 leaving a balance of GH¢ 2,100.00. From the foregoing, it is evident that the main issue for consideration by this Court is, Whether or not the outstanding balance between parties is GH¢ 2,100.00 or GH¢ 15,876.00 Evaluation of Evidence and Resolution of Issues It is trite that in civil cases, the general rule is that the party who in his/her pleading or writ raises issues essential to the success of his/her case assumes the onus of proof. The one who alleges, be he the Plaintiff or Defendant assumes the initial burden of producing evidence. It is only when he has succeeded in producing evidence that the other party will be asked to lead rebuttal evidence, if need be. Proof lies upon him who denies since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof. See the following; P age 2 | 6 SC II (1) & (2), 12 (2) AND 14 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 1975 [NRCD 323] AS WELL AS THE CASE OF TAKORADI FLOUR MILLS V SAMIR FARIS [2005 – 2006] SCGLR at 900. GIHOC REFEGERATION HOUSEHOLD v JEAN HANNA ASSI [2005 – 2006] SCGLR 458, T. CHANDRIAM v TETTEH [2018] 120 GMJ 112 at 147 CA per AGNES M.A DORDZIE, JA and AIR NAMIBIA v MICRON TRAVEL [2015] 91 GMJ 173 at 191 CA per Kanyoke JA. The Plaintiff’s had the onus of discharging the burden of producing sufficient evidence in respect of his claims on a balance of probabilities. The Plaintiff testified on 15/4/24 on the Plaintiff evidence was that he entered into agreement to grant a loan GH¢ 10,000.00. He averred that the Defendant has paid GH¢ 5,910.00 out of the GH¢ 10,000.00. He stated that the interest on the loan stood at 20% for a period of 50 working. Plaintiff further averred that the loan expired on 13/2/21. He stated that the outstanding balance is GH¢ 4,410.00, with 10% on the outstanding amount per month, which brought the outstanding balance to GH¢ 15,876.00 as at April, 2023. The Defendant also testified on 13/5/24 by relying on her witness statement filed on 9/5/24. Her evidence was that she took a loan of GH¢ 10,000.00 from the Plaintiff. She stated that she started repaying the loan until thieves broke into her shop. She said though things were difficult, she said though things were difficult, she has paid substantial part of loan. Defendant admitted owing the Plaintiff GH¢ 2,100.00 which the Court entered judgment on admission for the Court to determine GH¢ 13,776.00. From the evidence adduced, I found as a fact that the Plaintiff was given a loan of GH¢ 10,000.00. It is disputed that the Defendant has made payment of GH¢ 7,200.00. Plaintiff insisted that the Defendant has a loan balance of GH¢ 15,876.00 whilst the Defendant also stood her grounds that the outstanding loan is GH¢ 2,100.00. P age 3 | 6 This ensued under cross examination of the Plaintiff by the Defendant; Q. Per the calculation, I was supposed to use 50 days to finish with the payment, I was to pay GH¢ 240.00 a day is that correct? A. No My Lord. You were to pay GH¢ 240.00 a day. Q. I was able to pay 30days out of the 50 days is that correct? A. That is not correct, per records you paid 20 days. Q. Per records, I have paid GH¢ 7,200.00 leaving a balance of GH¢ 4,800.00 is that correct? A. It is not correct. You paid GH¢ 240.00 for 20 days and paid GH¢ 130.00 for 7 days and GH¢ 100.00 for two days. Q. Do you remember I came to your office to inform you that a partner has run away with my money, due to that you should reconsider my daily payment which you agreed I should pay GH¢ 130.00 a day. A. Yes I do Q. Was I able to pay GH¢ 1,000.00. A. No My Lord, you paid only 7days. Q. Did I pay only GH¢ 100.00 twice? A. Yes My Lord Q. If I deduct GH¢ 100.00 from GH¢ 4,800.00, I had a balance of GH¢ 3,700.00 is that correct? A. I don’t agree with the balance Q. Do you remember I came to your office to use my security as part of my payment? P age 4 | 6 A. Yes My Lord Q. So if I should deduct GH¢ 1,600.00 as my security from GH¢ 3,700.00 the balance will be GH¢ 2,100.00. A. I don’t agree with the balance you have used in the calculation. Q. Do you remember giving me a shit of paper in which we marked on it anytime I make payment? A. Yes My Lord From the evidence adduced in the trial and the attached exhibit marked JB ‘5’, it is clear that the Defendant has not made payment with a balance of GH¢ 2,100.00. The Exhibit marked JB ‘5’ attached to the Defendant’s witness statement was not signed by the Defendant neither the officer who was monitoring the payments of the Defendant. Further cross examination of the Defendant by Plaintiff went to prove that the Defendant did not make payments on 6, 8,11,12,13 of March 2021. Q. Is JB’5’ only a main statement that you have attached? A. It is both momo statement and a record card. Q. I am putting it to you that it is not momo statement? A. Yes My Lord. It is a continuation of momo statement and record card. The memo statement was not ready now. Q. I put it to you that you did not make payment on these days. A. I can’t argue since my payments were two methods either the officer goes to the shop to take money or I do transfer. P age 5 | 6 I have no hesitation in concluding that the Plaintiff been able to discharge the burden of prove on him and as such, judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff. SGD HIS WORSHIP PRINCE OSEI OWUSU DISTRICT MAGISTRATE P age 6 | 6