Yamoah and Another v Hu (A2/429/2024) [2024] GHADC 740 (4 October 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GHANA, NGLESHIE AMANFRO DISTRICT COURT HELD ON MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE HER WORSHIP EMELIA K. ABRUQUAH ESQ. (MRS). SUIT NO: A2/429/2024 1. PRECIOUS YAMOAH PLAINTIFF 2. RICHARD OSEI BOAKYE VRS HU YMING DEFENDANT PLAINTIFFS: PRESENT DEFENDANT: ABSENT JUDGMENT This is an action for the recovery of GHc20,000.00 being cost of room reservation, thirty percent (30%) of sales profit and expenses incurred by second plaintiff. The case of the plaintiffs who describe themselves as online traders filed joint witness statement in which they stated that, somewhere in 2023, the first plaintiff who was doing the online clothing business encountered the defendant online who express interest in doing the business with them. Defendant asked them to look for a store to rent so that he will be supplying them 1 | Page with goods from China on condition of outright payment. Under the agreement, the plaintiffs were asked by the defendant to rent an apartment for him which they did from the month of 12th March, 2024 to 29th March 2024. Defendant came to Ghana purposely to do clothing business with the plaintiffs and he was to be paying the plaintiffs 30% of every profit they make at a time. The plaintiffs aver that the defendant failed to honour the agreement and did not pay them the 30%. As part of the terms of the agreement, the plaintiffs paid all utilities including internet services for the Defendant in Ghana who was to reimbursed them but refused to pay them back and give them their share of the profit as agreed. The second plaintiff was also made to stop his farming in order to be an errand boy for the defendant from March 2024 to 22ND May 2024 for a pay which defendant never paid. The Defendant failed to fulfil his obligations under the agreement wherefore the Plaintiffs instituted this action. After, carefully, examining the Plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the only issue worth determining is: 1) Whether or not the Defendant owes the Plaintiffs GHc20,000.00. The Defendant was duly served will the Plaintiffs writ, statement of claim, witness statements and hearing notices, but he declined the invitation to come and defend himself. A principle of law is that when a party is given opportunity to lead evidence in support of his stand or in defence of allegations against him but he deliberately declines to avail himself of that opportunity, the court will be entitled to proceed with the trial to conclusion and make deductions, draw conclusions or make findings on the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial; see In re West Coast Dyeing Industry Limited; Adams Vrs. Tandoh [1984-86] 2GLR 561. Also, see Watalah Vrs. Ghana Prime Wood Products Limited [1973] 2 GLR 26. Under Order 25 Rule 1(2)(a) of the District Court Rules, 2009 (C.I. 59), where an action is called for trial and the Defendant fails to attend, the Plaintiff would be allowed to prove his claim. The Defendant had the opportunity to come to Court to cross examine the Plaintiffs 2 | Page and to adduce evidence but he elected not to be present to challenge the Plaintiffs claim by his conduct of not appearing in Court. The Defendant can therefore not raise at any point that the door of justice was shut to him. It was held in the case of Mence Mensah v E. Asiama [2011] 38 GMJ 174 SC that: “It is a salubrious principle of our jurisdiction that a litigant should have the opportunity of being heard, of telling his side of the story, of being free to present evidence and argument to buttress his case; but it is also settled law and dictates of common sense require also that once these opportunities have been extended to the litigant but the litigant decides not to avail himself of them within the period of the trial, he would not, on judicial considerations, be permitted to come later and plead for the reactivating of the very opportunities he declined to embrace.” See also Poku v Poku [2007-2008] SCGLR 996. The Court on the strength of these authorities therefore proceeded to hear the Plaintiffs prove their claim. Though the Defendant did not appear before the court to challenge the suit, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to automatic grant of their claims just because the Defendant did not attend court. It is worth stating that the Plaintiffs have led uncontroverted evidence to prove their claims before the court. I say so because their evidence have not been tested under cross examination and there is no contrary evidence before the court. I therefore hold on the preponderance of the probabilities that the plaintiffs’ claims are more probable than not. In the circumstance I enter judgment in Plaintiffs favour to recover an amount GHC 20,000.00 being cost of room reservation, utilities and internet services and 30% of sales profit owed the Plaintiffs I award cost of GHC 500.00 in Plaintiffs favour. (SGD) HER WORSHIP EMELIA K. ABRUQUAH ESQ., (MRS) 3 | Page MAGISTRATE 4 | Page