Okrah Vrs Kwame [2022] GHADC 173 (15 November 2022)
Plaintiff's evidence was unchallenged and credible, establishing that the defendant breached the agreement by refusing to accept the balance or refund the part payment after selling the farm to another person. Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of GHC2,600.00 with interest.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] GHADC 173
- Parties
- Plaintiff: James Okrah; Defendant: Dennis Mawuli Kwame
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- Ghana
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Sale of Land, Refund of Purchase Price, Breach of Contract
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
James Okrah
Plaintiff
Dennis Mawuli Kwame
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant breached the sale agreement by refusing to accept the balance or refund the part payment
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the part payment made for the cocoa farm
Ratio Decidendi
Plaintiff's evidence was unchallenged and credible, establishing that the defendant breached the agreement by refusing to accept the balance or refund the part payment after selling the farm to another person. Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of GHC2,600.00 with interest.
Court Disposition
judgment for the plaintiff
Orders
- Defendant to refund GHC2,600.00 to plaintiff with interest at the prevailing bank rate from July 2022 until final payment.
- Defendant to pay costs of GHC1,500.00 to plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT KIBI, EASTERN REGION, HELD ON TUESDAY 15TH NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HER WORSHIP MRS. JULIET OSEI – DUEDU SITTING AS THE MAGISTRATE JAMES OKRAH PLAINTIFF SUIT NUMBER: A11/33/22 VRS DENNIS MAWULI KWAME DEFENDANT JUDGMENT Per his writ of summons filed on the 6th September, 2022, plaintiff herein makes the following alternative claim against the defendant; “a. Judicial relief praying the Honourable Court to prevail upon the defendant to take GHC2,400.00, being; the outstanding balance of a one-acre cocoa farm the defendant sold to him (Plaintiff) at GHC5,000.00 on 15th July 2022, but after making part payment of GHC2,600.00, the defendant has refused to take the remaining balance of GHC2,400.00 from him (Plaintiff) despite repeated demands. ALTERNATIVELY; An order of the court to prevail upon the defendant to give back GHC2,600.00, the Plaintiff gave to him as part payment of the one – acre cocoa farm plus interest… b. Costs.” After a few fruitless adjournments with orders for hearing notices to issue, all in the bid to get defendant come to court to take part in the trial of this matter, this court ordered plaintiff to file his witness statement which he did on, 14th November, 2022. Plaintiff attached exhibits A and B, the deed of sale and receipt on the part payment to his witness statement. The general rule is that, when a party is given the opportunity to lead evidence in support of his stand or in defence of allegations against him but 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, In re West Coast Dyeing Industry Ltd.; Adams V Tandoh [1984 – 86] 2 GLR, 561, referred. In the instant case also since defendant has failed to avail himself of the numerous opportunities offered him by the court, this court is minded to decide this case on the basis of the available evidence. 2 According plaintiff’s testimony, duly supported by the documentary evidence, exhibits A and B, the parties herein entered into an oral agreement for the sale of a one – acre cocoa farm by the defendant to the plaintiff, in June 2022. The agreed price was, GHC5,000.00, and plaintiff made a part payment of GHC2, 600.00 leaving a balance of GHC2, 400.00 to be paid by him at the end of August, 2022. Defendant issued exhibit B, a receipt on the payment dated; 15th July, 2022 to plaintiff acknowledging the above details. This agreement was reduced into writing by a deed of sale duly executed by the parties on 8th August, 2022. This was also tendered in evidence by plaintiff as exhibit A. Both exhibits A and B have been duly registered and stamped at the Lands Commission, Koforidua. Per plaintiff’s evidence again, on the 20th July, 2022, before the agreed date for the balance to be paid, he was able to get the amount involved, the GHC2,400.00 and presented same to the defendant but he refused to accept it. All efforts to either get defendant to accept the outstanding balance to conclude the sale or refund plaintiff’s money to him proved futile. He subsequently learnt from a worker of the defendant that the farm has been sold to someone else. Plaintiff ended his evidence on the note that since defendant has already sold the land to another person; he should be ordered to refund his GHC2,600.00 to him. This court having considered plaintiff’s unchallenged evidence on record with no reason to doubt his credibility, is minded to grant him his alternative claim as prayed for. Since sufficient evidence has been proffered with no other evidence on record to controvert same, I will enter judgment in this case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Judgment is hereby, so entered for the plaintiff and against the defendant on the sum of GHC2,600 with interest at the prevailing bank rate from July 2022, till date of final payment. Costs of GHC 1,500.00, for the plaintiff and against the defendant. SGD H/W MRS JULIET OSEI – DUEDU ESQ DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 15/11/2022