Amankwa Vrs Adelakpui [2023] GHADC 206 (12 April 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT SITTING AT ASAMANKESE ON THE 12TH APRIL, 2023, BEFORE HIS WORSHIP GEORGE DAVIS KWASI OFORI (MR) – DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DOREEN AMANKWA SUIGNG PER HER LAWFUL ATTORNEY REBECCA ASAMIAH VRS. SUIT NO: A11/21/22 …… PLAINTIFF KASIM ADELAKPUI …….. DEFENDANT J U D G M E N T CLAIM: a) An order of the Honourable Court to prevail upon the defendant to come down to Asamankese to put up final and satisfactory touches to the kitchen design work assigned and entrusted to him by the plaintiff somewhere in October, 2020. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE The refund to the plaintiff the sum of twenty six thousand Ghana Cedis (Gh¢26,000.00) paid to the defendant for the said kitchen design work with interest at the prevailing bank rate commencing October, 2020 to the date of judgment. b) Costs. COUNTER CLAIM: The defendant joined issues and counter-Claimed as follows: 1 | P a g e Payment of the sum of One thousand six hundred Ghana cedis (Gh¢1,600.00) by the plaintiff to him being the balance the plaintiff owes him for fully installing a kitchen cabinet set and high lander which the plaintiff has failed to pay. b) Costs. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE: According to her, she contracted the defendant to make a U-shape kitchen cabinet for her, and use marble for the top, and paid the defendant, leaving a balance of Gh¢1,600.00. That the defendant, instead of a U-shape kitchen cabinet rather made an L-shape cabinet. Again, he did not use marble to design the top but rather used granite. That the entire job was poorly done, hence this suit, praying the court for the reliefs endorsed on her writ of summons. The plaintiff did not call any witness SUMMARY OF DEFENDANT’S CASE: After filing his witness statement on 3/11/2022 and serving the plaintiff’s attorney, the defendant never came back to Court for case management conference and hearing till 30th March, 2023 when the plaintiff’s attorney was heard. The service of a hearing notice and substituted service could not compel the attendance of the defendant. Therefore, his witness statement could not be adopted as his evidence. Accordingly, in accordance with Order 25r1(2)(a) of the District Court Rules 2009(C. I 59) as amended, I dismissed the defendant’s counter-claim and struck out his witness statement. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION: 2 | P a g e From all the evidence before me, the only issue for determination is whether or not the defendant breached the agreement or contract he had with the plaintiff. Since the defendant did not come to Court to defend himself by cross-examining the plaintiff’s attorney, I take what the plaintiff’s attorney said in her witness statement to be the truth and therefore enter judgment in her favour. Accordingly, the defendant is compelled by this judgment to specifically perform the contract he entered into with the plaintiff by completing the kitchen cabinet within three months of this judgment. Since it is evident that the defendant has done substantively most of the job given him, I am unable to award the plaintiff the ALTERNATIVE relief sought because it would not make sense, theirs the award of the equitable remedy of specific performance. Costs of Gh¢2,000.00 awarded against the defendant. (SGD) H/W GEORGE DAVIS KWASI OFORI(MR) (MAGISTRATE) 12/4/23 3 | P a g e