MUSAH VRS BUOKORI (UW/WA/DC/A2/14/2023) [2023] GHADC 1248 (11 December 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, WA HELD ON MONDAY, 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP, MAXWELL M. TITRIKU DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. SUIT No: UW/WA/DC/A2/14/2023 ASIYA PORTIA MUSAH .................. PLAINTIFF V SEIDU BUOKORI ................. DEFENDANT PARTIES PRESENT CRISPIN WURA-SEY ZIEKAH ESQ., FOR PLAINTIFF HON. CLEMENT ELEDI ESQ., FOR DEFENDANT JUDGMENT The Plaintiff, on Thursday, 8th December, 2022 filed writ of summons against the Defendant herein, and claimed for: a. Recovery of the sum of Seventy-Nine Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty-Seven, Ghana Cedis, forty-five pesewas (GH¢79,557.45) from the Defendant, being principal investment amounts invested by Plaintiff and interest thereon with Defendant’s business pursuant to Defendant’s representation to Plaintiff that, his business Enterprise, Wongwaana Enterprise is into investment as one of its businesses. b. Recovery of the sum of Seven Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifty Cedis (GH¢7,650.00) being the amount paid by Plaintiff to Defendant for building materials left with Defendant to be collected, but which Defendant has refused to give to Plaintiff nor refund the amount paid. c. Interest on the said amounts being recovered in reliefs “a” and “b” as stated at the prevailing Commercial Bank interest rate from the date of issue of the writ of summons until date of final payment. d. Cost of litigation. The Defendant, however pleaded “Not Liable”, after the reliefs of Plaintiff were read and explained to him. CASE FOR THE PLAINTIFF In her evidence-in-chief, the Plaintiff (Ayisa Portia Musah), a retired Matron of a Senior High School, resident at H/Se No. 160, Block “B”, Dokpong Residential Area, Wa, stated that, she knew the Defendant (Seidu Buokori). According to her, she acquired a plot of land at the Airstrip Residential Area to put up a house and when she was ready to the building project, someone recommended the Defendant, who deals in building materials to her. She said, the Defendant owns a business called Wongwaana Enterprise, located on the Airstrip Road in Wa, which at the time she dealt with him. She said, she bought One Hundred bags of Cement from the Defendant (Exhibit “A”), to mould blocks for construction of her building, where they had cordial relationship, and she then took the Defendant as her Son. She said, between February 2013 and August, 2014, she bought building materials from the Defendant, comprising of Iron Rods (Exhibit “B”), Nails, Cement, Roofing Gutters and Cups (Exhibit “C), and IBP Zinc (Exhibit “D”), which summed up to a total of (Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty Ghana Cedis GH¢7,560.00). she said, the Defendant, after the purchase of each of these items assured her that, she could leave the items at the shop and pick them up whenever she needed them, and she also agreed and consequently, the receipts issued to her were always initialed T. B. C., meaning, “To Be Collected”, implying that, the items were duly paid for, but would be collected at a later date from Defendant’s shop. Plaintiff further stated that, as part of her plan towards her retirement, she decided to look for a Bank to start an investment, so that, by the time she retired in 2019, she would have accumulated some money to complete her house and use the rest for her business. She said in March 2017 she went to Bank of Africa, Wa, to enquire about their investment options, where she met the Defendant, and in conversation with the Defendant, she told him her reasons for being at the said Bank and the Defendant replied her that, he (Defendant’s business, Wongwaana Enterprise was also into investment and he thus persuaded her to rather invest her money in to his business i.e. Wongwaana Enterprise, to enable her make 15% profit for a period of three Months on GH¢10,000.00 or more with his business. According to the Plaintiff, pursuant to the promise made to her by the Defendant, and having relied on same, on the 8th day of March, 2017, she gave to the Defendant an amount of GH¢20, 000.00 to invest for her for the period of three months at 15% interest rate, and on 14th day of March, 2017, she again gave Defendant an amount of GH¢26, 000.00 to be invested at an interest rate of 15%, which Defendant promised to mature in June 2017. She said, per the 15% interest rate which was given by the Defendant, she (Plaintiff) was to make GH¢3,900.00 as interest, plus the principal of GH¢ 29,900.00 in June, 2017. She said, after June, 2017 when the initial investment had matured, she did not take the said money being the GH¢29,900.00, but she further gave the Defendant money on regular intervals to increase her investments and it was rolled over till it reached an amount of GH¢92,757.45 as at 8th March, 2019 for which she was due to claim on 8th day of June, 2019. She said, whenever she made payments to increase her investment sum with the Defendant, he usually issued her with receipt to reflect the amount she was due, and retained the previous receipt issued, thus at every point in time, she had one receipt showing the value or sum of money she due upon maturity of her investment, but she did not insist on collection of her previous receipts, because of the trust she had in the Defendant, and also because he usually assured her that, she needed only the receipt showing the amount of money she would be due upon the maturation of the investment. Plaintiff further stated that, in June, 2019, she then approached the Defendant to pay her, because she was preparing to go on retirement in August, 2019, but the Defendant gave her excuses and promised on several occasions to pay her, but he failed. She said, at a point Defendant stopped answering her calls, and his attitude caused her to develop High Blood Pressure because he was denying her of her life savings. She said, Defendant finally replied to her calls and kept giving her stories, and failed to pay or give her the building materials until February, 2021, when she was compelled to report him to the Police, and he was arrested, where he admitted owing her in his statement to the Police. She said, when Defendant was arraigned before the Circuit Court, Wa, he paid an amount of GH¢13,200.00. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant owes her an amount of GH¢79,557.45 out of a total investment amount of Ninety-Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty-Seven Cedis and Forty-five pesewas (GH¢92, 757.45), as well as the building materials which Plaintiff paid for, amounting to Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty Cedis (GH¢7,560.00). She said, Defendant is deliberately refusing to pay her back the money and to give her the items she purchased albeit several demands made on him. End of Evidence. Cross-Examination of Plaintiff by Counsel for the Defendant: Q: If you look at Exhibit “E”, exhibited by yourself, it has the same collected and a stamp paid on it? A: Yes, it is there, but I have paid the money to the Defendant and he has collected it. Q: In Exhibit “E” there is no narration to show that, the money was paid for investment? A: It is not stated, but between me and Defendant, it is real. Q: From your own Exhibits when you pay money to Defendant (especially Exhibits A, B, and C), he issued receipts? A: Yes. Thereafter, Plaintiff closed her case without calling any witness. EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT In his evidence-in-chief, the Defendant (Seidu Buokori), a business man, resident at Airstrip Residential Area, Wa, stated that, he got to know the Plaintiff sometime in 2011/2012, where he (Defendant) and the Plaintiff had different plots of land adjacent to each other at the Airstrip Residential Area. He said, the Plaintiff used to buy building materials from him. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff periodically deposited money with him for the purchase of her building materials and if the Plaintiff did not convey the building materials immediately, he (Defendant) would write on the Receipt “TBC” (meaning, To Be Collected), and at any time, Plaintiff is ready to collect the building materials, she comes for them. He said, he never met the Plaintiff at Bank of Africa, Wa, as she alleges, and it is not true that, he (Defendant) told the Plaintiff that, his business, Wongwaana Enterprise was into investment, and persuaded the Plaintiff to invest her money in his business. He said, the Plaintiff herself knew that, his Enterprise, Wongwaana Enterprise was not authorized to engage in any form of financial transactions, such as investments as claimed by Plaintiff. He said, the Plaintiff’s own Written Statement, more particularly paragraph 9 and 10 shows that, the Plaintiff herself knew that, investments such hers were done with a financial institution such as a Bank, hence, Plaintiff’s claim that, he (Defendant) offered her 15% profit for a period of three (3) months if she invested Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢10,000.00) or more, is totally false, and that, Plaintiff’s claim that she gave him Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢20,000.00) on 8th March, 2017 to invest at an interest rate of 15% for a period of three (3) Months is also false, and that, if Plaintiff had given him such an amount, he would have issued a receipt to cover the said amount. The Defendant further stated that, the Plaintiff’s claim that, she also gave him an amount of Six Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢6,000.00) to add up to a total of Twenty-Six Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢26,000.00) with an interest rate of 15% to mature in June, 2017 is totally false, and therefore deny the Plaintiff’s claim as she stated in paragraph 17 of her evidence-in-chief. He said, the Plaintiff herself knows that, Wongwaana Enterprise was not permitted by its registration to engage in the business of investment of money, therefore, any such agreement is invalid and cannot be enforced against him. He said, he denied Plaintiff’s claim that, she further gave him money on regular intervals to increase her investment to Ninety-Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty-Seven Ghana Cedis, Forty-Five Pesewas (GH¢92, 757.45), as at 8th March, 2019. He said, he also denied paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Plaintiff’s written statement. He said, it is however true that, he (Defendant) was arraigned before the Circuit Court, Wa after a report was made by the Plaintiff to the Police, where he gave statement to the Police, but the said statement was never admitted in evidence. He said, before he was arraigned before the Circuit Court, Wa, due to persistent pressure from the Police, he (Defendant) paid an amount of Ten Thousand, Two Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH¢10, 200.00) to the Police for onward payment to the Plaintiff, and further paid Three Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢3,000.00) in the Circuit Court, Wa, for onward payment to the Plaintiff, amounting to total payment of Thirteen Thousand, Two Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH¢13,200,00). According to the Defendant, he does not owe the Plaintiff an amount of Seventy-Nine Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty-Seven Ghana Cedis, Forty-Five Pesewas (GH¢79,557.45), as she claims in paragraph 25 of her written statement. He said, the Plaintiff’s claim in paragraph 26 of her written statement that he (Defendant) took some of the Receipts he (Defendant) issued to her is also false. He said, he issued all Receipts to the Plaintiff in duplicate, and whilst he gave the Plaintiff the originals of the Receipts, and he (Defendant) kept the duplicates. He said, he (Defendant) however, agreed that, he owes Plaintiff an amount of Twenty-Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty Ghana Cedis (GH¢28, 660.00), but he paid Thirteen Thousand, Two Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH¢13,200.00) leaving a balance of Fifteen Thousand, Four Hundred and Sixty Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 15,460.00). End of Evidence. Cross-Examination of Defendant by Counsel for Plaintiff: Q: So, the date put on the receipt, 08/08/17 to 08/11/2017, what does it mean? A: It indicates that, she (Plaintiff) only came to deposit money without pointing out the materials she preferred, but she later came to identify some, but we did not want payment to exceed the date. Q: Whenever Plaintiff came to you to buy building materials, she came with clarity on the building materials she came to buy and same indicated on the Receipts of the building materials she bought and you issued? A: It is true. Q: So, you realized that, from your own Exhibit “3”, the purpose for the purchase was indicated as cost of Hundred (100) bags of cement and the date of that transaction is what is on the Receipt? A: It is true, but I added TBC on the Receipt. Q: Your Exhibit “4” also captured the building material purchased and had the date only of the said payment? A: Yes. Q: Also, on Exhibit “5”, the purpose of the purchase was indicated as cost of five (5) packets of IBP Nails cost GH¢3,250.00? A: Yes, there is TBC on it. Q: Also, on Exhibit “6”, the items Plaintiff purchased was put on the Receipt and date, only captured an amount of GH¢650.00, which is cost of one carton IBP Nails? A: It is true, I indicated To Be Collected. Q: The Plaintiff indeed brought you to Court because, you owed her an amount of GH¢79,557.00 amounting to monies you received from her as investment upon which you pay interest? A: Not true, I paid all to Plaintiff. Q: So, if you said, you paid Plaintiff or she collected all building materials she paid for, what does GH¢15,460.00 cover? A: For those building materials, she did indicate to me and paid for them which I was able to cover all the amount, but those monies she deposited without indicating the type of materials account for this amount. Thereafter, Defendant closed his case without calling any witness. The legal issue that emerged for determination by this Honorable Court was: • WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO HER CLAIMS. In the Supreme Court case of: LAMPTEY @ NKPA v FANYIE & ORS [1989-90] 1 GLR 286, it was held (Holding 1), per Francois JSC, as follows: “On the general principles, it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove his case. However, when on a particular issue, he had led some evidence, then the burden would shift to the defendant to lead sufficient evidence to tip the scale in his favour. The defendant would only win if he was able to do that.” ..... This was clearly stated in the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), Section 14, as follows: S. 14: “Except as otherwise provided by law, unless and until 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 he is asserting.” ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE After the trial, the following facts and observations were made by this Honourable Court: i. It was evident that, the Defendant is a business man, who owns Wongwaana Enterprise, where he is into selling of building materials, as he answered the following questions among others from Counsel for the Plaintiff: Counsel : What business were you into? Defendant : I was selling building materials Counsel : The Plaintiff on several occasions bought building materials from you which were to be collected at different material times? Defendant : Yes. Counsel : You also take deposits and promise interest? Defendant : Deposits don’t imply interest, when you deposit and when you finish paying then you come for the deposit. In his Book: “THE LAW OF CONTRACT”, 25th Edition @ Pg. 12, The Learned Author, ANSON, stated as follows: “Agreement is not a mental state, but an act, and as an act, it is a matter of inference from conduct. The parties are to be judged, not by what is in their minds, but by what they have said, or written or done.” In the instant case, evidence showed that, the parties agreed that, the Plaintiff offered to buy, and the Defendant promised to sell and the price was fixed and agreed upon by the parties. • SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1960 (ACT 137), S. 1(1), and 6(1), Applied. ii. It was evident that, based on this agreement, Plaintiff periodically deposited money with the Defendant for the purchase of building materials, as Defendant stated in paragraph 3 of his evidence-in-chief as follows: Paragraph 3: “The Plaintiff periodically deposited money with me for the purchase of building materials and if the Plaintiff does not take the building materials immediately, I write on the Receipt ‘TDB’, (meaning To Be Collected). Any time Plaintiff is ready to collect the building materials, she comes for them. ........... AND, in cross-examination, Plaintiff answered the following questions from Counsel for the Defendant: Counsel : Look at Exhibit “A”, it is in respect of 100bags of Cement? Plaintiff : Yes Counsel : There is TBC on Exhibit “A”? Plaintiff : Yes Counsel : What is meaning of TBC? Plaintiff : To Be Collected Counsel : There is “TBC” on Exhibit “B”? Plaintiff : Yes Counsel : Which means to be collected? Plaintiff : Yes Counsel : Exhibit “C1” is in respect of five (5) packets of IBP zinc, also has TBC? Plaintiff : Yes Counsel : There is also TBC on Exhibit “D”, meaning to be collected? Plaintiff : Yes. ........... This clearly showed that, Exhibits “A” to “D” tendered by Plaintiff, were payments made to the Defendant by Plaintiff for the purchase of SPECIFIC building materials, in accordance with SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1962 (ACT 137), S. 5 (1), and when the items were not collected, T. B. C. was written on the receipts to indicate that, same were to be collected, which amounted to GH¢7,650.00. ......... AND in cross-examination, Defendant answered the following questions among others from Counsel for Plaintiff: Counsel : Whenever the Plaintiff came to buy building materials she came with clarity on the materials she came to buy and same indicated on the receipts of the building materials she bought and you issued? Defendant : It is true. Counsel : So, you agree with me that, on all the Receipts the purchase of the building materials expressly indicated on the Receipts and you received payments? Defendant : Yes, Plaintiff only paid and she collected all the Materials. Counsel : For the deposit you claimed Plaintiff made, but did not indicate the building materials, how much is that monies in total? Defendant : It is GH¢21,400.00 Counsel : I put it to you that, Plaintiff has not collected any materials from you? Defendant : I have paid all the amount on the Receipts to Plaintiff. Counsel : And out of the building materials for which Plaintiff paid money to you for which receipts were issued, your outstanding indebtedness to her is GH¢7,650.00? Defendant : Not true, but based on my calculation, I owed Plaintiff GH¢7,260.00. ............ In the opinion of this Honourable Court, it is undeniable fact on the faces of Exhibits A, B, C and D, bearing TBC, meaning To Be Collected, which served as a documentary proof that, Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff to the tune of GH¢7,650.00, for Monies paid by Plaintiff to the Defendant for the purchase of specific building materials. • MAJOLAGBE v LARBI & ORS [1959] GLR 190 @ 192. • THE SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1962, (ACT 137) S. 8(1), Applied. In the High Court case of: AKWEI v AGYEPONG & ANOR [1962] 1 GLR 277, it was held, per Ollenu J (as he then was), as follows: “A contract for sale under the common law must, to be enforceable, be evidenced by a note or memorandum as required by Section 4 of the Statue of Frauds, 1677 (29 Cha, 2, c. 3)”, which is a statue of general application.” In the instant case, Exhibits A, B, C, and D, constitute a note, and if Defendant actually supplied these materials or paid these monies to the Plaintiff, Exhibits A, B, C and D would have been taken from the Plaintiff, or T. B. C. cancelled, and/or another Receipt issued to indicate collection of the specific goods. iii. In another development, a careful look at Exhibits 1 & 2, shows that, there were no description of goods, but only monies paid by Plaintiff to the Defendant as deposits with three (3) months period. ............ AND, in cross-examination, Defendant answered the following questions among others from Counsel for the Plaintiff: Counsel : On the said evidence of payment you issued to the Plaintiff, you endorsed same of a stamp of Wongwaana Enterprise and the date 08/09/2019 and you indicated Collected? Defendant : Yes, it is true. Counsel : But, on the receipts, there were two dates indicative of a period of three (3) months? Defendant : Whatever transpired on the receipts, I notified the Plaintiff. I am an illiterate so, I can’t talk of percentages Counsel : You agree with me that, you issued the said receipts? Defendant : Yes. Counsel : And for those receipts evident of payment issued by you to the Plaintiff, the period of three (3) months was always indicated? Defendant : Not true, I did not write any three (3) months on any receipts Counsel : Look at Exhibit “1”, tell us the period between 08/08/17 to 08/11/17? Defendant : When you calculate, it is three (3) months. Counsel : Take a look at Exhibit “2”, and tell the Court what period it is from 14/08/2017 to 14/11/2017? Defendant : Based on calculation, it is three (3) months. Counsel : And how much of it have you paid? Defendant : As I am here, I can’t calculate the total amount I paid. ......... These were inconsistences in the evidence adduced by the Defendant, which affects his credibility. • OBENG v BEMPOMAA [1992-93] GBR 1027, CA, Applied. ............ It was also evident that, the T. B. C on both Exhibits “1” and “2”, were crossed-out, as Defendant answered the following questions from Counsel for the Plaintiff: Counsel : Take a look at Exhibit “1”, the T. B. C. has been crossed-out, tell the Court the reason? Defendant : The Plaintiff came and we all did the calculation and we cancelled the receipt and I told her to pay the money in installment but plaintiff disagreed. Counsel : Take a loot at Exhibit “2”, the TDC has also been crossed- out, why? Defendant : Exhibit “2”, also speak to the effect of Exhibit “1”, I and Plaintiff cancelled the receipt. Counsel : Exhibits “1” and “2” were deliberately tempered with by you in respect with the cancellation of TBC? Defendant : Not true. Counsel : I am putting it to you that, this is an afterthought because nowhere in your witness statement you met with Plaintiff to cross-out the receipt. Defendant : I disagree. ........... In the opinion of this Court, Exhibits 1 and 2, being cross-out by Defendant clearly showed that, the goods have been collected or monies refunded by Defendant to the Plaintiff, since Plaintiff could not produce the original to prove otherwise. iv. Plaintiff again claimed in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of her evidence-in-chief that, she once went to Bank of Africa to enquire about their investment options, where she met Defendant and through her interactions with the Defendant, Defendant promised her that she could make 15% profit for a period of three (3) months, should she invest GH¢10,000.00 or more with Defendant’s business, and pursuant to this promise she (Plaintiff) started depositing money with Defendant amounting to GH¢92,757.45 (Exhibit “E”). ............ Interestingly, Plaintiff supported the said investment with Exhibit “E”, No. 0002453, which bears Defendant’s Business Company’s name (i.e. Wongwaana Enterprise & Building Solution), dated 08/03/2019, has cash deposit of GH¢92,757.45, with three months’ maturity period (i.e. 08/03/2019 to 08/06/2019) on the face of same document (Exhibit “E”), with Defendant’s Company stamp indicated COLLECTED and PAID, on same document which was endorsed by the Defendant, as Manager’s Signature, and that of the Customer, the Plaintiff. ........... AND, in cross-examination, Defendant answered the following questions among others from Counsel for Plaintiff: Counsel : You also took deposits and promised interest? Defendant : Deposits don’t imply interests, when you deposit and when you finish paying, then you come for the deposit. Counsel : The total investment the Plaintiff made to you inclusive of the principal payment and interest is GH¢92,757.45 which you issue an invoice dated 08/03/19 to be recovered on 08/06/19, which is another 3 months (i.e. Exhibit “E”)? Defendant : Not true. Counsel : You have told this Court that, you issued Exhibit “E”? Defendant : For the invoice, it is my invoice but the calculation on it was done by the Plaintiff. Counsel : This invoice (i.e. Exhibit “E”) as you admitted is your invoice and could not have been issued by the Plaintiff with the amount on it, if you had not agreed because it is your invoice? Defendant : I disagreed with Plaintiff and after we had misunderstanding that is why I stated COLLECTED on the invoice which is not effective but plaintiff took it away. Counsel : It is because you know that, you owed Plaintiff GH¢92,757.45 that, is the reason you made the payment at the Police Station and even at the Circuit Court towards defraying that amount? Defendant : Not true, I owed Plaintiff, but it is not up to GH¢92,757.45. .......... Defendant, also admitted in paragraph 13 of his evidence-in-chief that, he owed Plaintiff an amount of GH¢28,660.00, out of which he paid a total sum of GH¢13,200.00. to the Plaintiff, at the time he (Defendant) was arrested by the Police, leaving a balance of GH¢15,460.00. but Defendant however, could not tender any document to prove the said amount (i.e. GH¢28,660.00) he claimed he owed Plaintiff. • EVIDENCE ACT, 1975 (NRCD), S. 24 (1), 26, Applied. Moreover, in paragraph 28 and 29 of the evidence-in-chief of the Plaintiff, and per Exhibit “E”, it was evident that, the Plaintiff, made deposits of monies with the Defendant’s Wongwaana Enterprise, which amounted to GH¢92,757.45, with the intention of investing the said amount on the advice of the Defendant, and when Defendant failed to pay, Plaintiff caused the arrest of the Defendant, where Defendant paid an amount of GH¢13,200.00, leaving a balance of GH¢79,557.45. ......... AND, in cross-examination, Plaintiff answered the following questions among others from Counsel for the Plaintiff: Counsel : You have not exhibited any document to show that, you gave money to the Defendant to invest on your behalf? Plaintiff : Exhibit “E” is the evidence Counsel : Can you read from the portion of Exhibit “E” where it states you gave money to Defendant for investment? Plaintiff : I mentioned my investment in my witness statement Counsel : So, I am suggesting to you that, there is nothing to show on the face of Exhibit “E” that, you gave money to the Defendant for investment? Plaintiff : Defendant knows that, I gave money to him for investment. Counsel : On Exhibit “E”, is a stamp with the word collected, dated 08/03/19? Plaintiff : Yes, it is true Counsel : Is it the investment you collected? Plaintiff : I have not collected any investment, the date on it is 08/03/19 to maturity date, 08/06/19, which shows that, it is an investment. In the opinion of this Honourable Court, until the standard is set, whether a particular document contains the essential terms, should be determined on case by case basis. In the English case of: WELFORD v BEAZELY [1747] 3 ATK, HC, 503, it was held as follows: “For the purpose of section 4 of the Statute of Frauds, no special form of a memorandum is required, and that, any document or documents read together containing the essential terms of the contract will be sufficient.” • BBC TRADING CO. LTD v BASSIL [1963] GLR 209, HC, PREMPEH J(as he then was), Applied. In the instant case, even though Exhibit “E” is an Invoice, its contents as described above, indicated essential terms of a transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in which money (i.e. GH¢92,757.45) was deposited by Plaintiff, and same acknowledged by the Defendant on the face of the said Exhibit “E”, guaranteeing payment of the said amount by Plaintiff, which Defendant, signed his name thereunder, and affixed on it, his Company’s stamp thereby clearly binding the Defendant’s Company to the amount of GH¢92,757.45 on Exhibit “E”, out of which Defendant paid GH¢13,200.00 leaving a balance of GH¢79,755.45, which is still unpaid. Accordingly, on the balance of probabilities, judgment is hereby entered against the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for: i. Recovery of the sum of Seventy-Nine Thousand, Five-Hundred and Fifty- Seven Ghana Cedis and Forty-Five Pesewas (GH¢79,557.45) from Defendant, being amount deposited thereon by Plaintiff with Defendant’s Business Enterprise, Wongwaana Enterprise, Wa. ii. Recovery of the sum of Seven Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifty Ghana Cedis (GH¢7,650.00), being the amount paid by Plaintiff to Defendant for purchase of specific building materials, to be collected, but which Defendant has failed to deliver to Plaintiff nor refund the amount paid. iii. Interest on the said amount (i.e. GH¢7,650.00), at the prevailing Commercial Bank Interest rate from date of issue of the writ of summons (i.e. 08/12/2022) till date of final payment. Costs of Five Thousand, Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH¢5,500.00) against the Defendant, in favour of the Plaintiff. ................................................... MAXWELL M. TITRIKU MAGISTRATE DISTRICT COURT, WA, UW/R 11/12/2023. 20