AGBESI VRS KPORKU (A2/130/2023) [2023] GHADC 1126 (30 March 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, KPETOE HELD ON THURSDAY 30TH MARCH, 2023. BEFORE HIS WORSHIP CHRISTIAN HEVI-AFFUFLU, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. SUIT №:- A2/130/2023 VORSAH AGBESI ) ... PLAINTIFF -VRS - WISDOM KPORKU ) ... DEFENDANT JUDGMENT The plaintiff’s case was for the recovery of an amount of GH¢1,015.00 being rent advance he paid to the defendant. The plaintiff’s evidence was that he was looking for accommodation and went to the defendant. The defendant’s rent payable per month was GH¢40.00. The plaintiff stated he paid GH¢480.00 to the defendant as rent advance for one year. The plaintiff continued that the defendant demanded an additional GH¢200.00 to enable defendant fix door to the room. The plaintiff stated that he spent GH¢400.00 to fix the door. However after the plaintiff had fixed the door to the room, the defendant refused to allow plaintiff occupy the room. The defendant then rented the room out to a third party. According to the plaintiff when he went to the house in demand for his money, the defendant chased him out of the house never to step foot there again. In his defence, the defendant stated that when the plaintiff approached him to rent the room he told him the rate payable per month was GH¢60.00. He continued that the plaintiff pleaded with him to make a part payment of GH¢400.00 as plaintiff had not all the amount of GH¢720.00 for one year rent advance. The defendant’s case was that after sometime the plaintiff returned and demanded for a refund of his money as he (plaintiff) had secured an accommodation (uncompleted building) somewhere. The defendant said he had no money then so he informed the plaintiff to give him sometime for the refund. As he did not make the refund on time, the plaintiff reported him to the police at Kpetoe. The defendant was asked to refund plaintiff’s money to him which he did. According to the defendant he is a pastor who works at Peki and that he goes to work and returns after two weeks. Upon one of such visits, he met the plaintiff with a carpenter who was fixing a new door to the room. The defendant questioned the plaintiff about his mission and the plaintiff said he wanted to rent the room again. The defendant said he told plaintiff not to continue with the fixing of the lock on the door. He said his point was that he had already refunded plaintiff’s money (GH¢400.00) to him so he (plaintiff) had no business in his house again. The plaintiff told the carpenter he will report his conduct to the police. According to the evidence of PW1 he lives close to the house of the defendant. Earlier before the plaintiff will rent a room from the defendant, he led two other persons to rent rooms in the house of the defendant. The witness evidence was that he was not the one who introduced the plaintiff to the defendant, however he was present when the plaintiff paid GH¢480.00 to the defendant as rent advance. The witness (PW1) stated that the plaintiff actually gave the money to him and he handed it over to the defendant. He went on that the plaintiff informed him of additional GH¢200.00 he paid to the defendant to fix the door. According to the wittiness, he informed the plaintiff to fix it himself as it was a similar thing that happened to one tenant by name Godwin. The witness stated that was what the defendant did to the tenants to change the room to self-contained but after collecting money from them he failed to honour his promise. The issue to be determined was whether or not the defendant has refunded the plaintiff’s money. The evidence of the plaintiff was that he gave a total amount of GH¢680.00 and fixed the door which both totalled GH¢1,015.00. The rate at which the defendant rented the room was GH¢400.00 per month. The plaintiff therefore paid GH¢480.00 for one year as rent advance. He further added GH¢200.00 for the defendant to fix door to the room. This the defendant failed to do. In the instant case the plaintiff was able to discharge the burden in proof of his case. Section 17(1) of Act 323 (1975) provides: “Except as otherwise provided by law (a) the burden of producing evidence of a particular fact is on the party against whom a finding on that fact would be required in the absence of further proof.” The defendant herein stated that the plaintiff reported him to the police at Kpetoe. The police ordered him to refund the money to the plaintiff. There was no evidence before the court that the money was refunded by the defendant. At least the police would have been in court to attest to the assertion of the defendant. This he failed to do. The witness of the plaintiff (PW1) made serious assertion against the defendant. The defendant failed to question him on those assertions. The defendant was in the habit of collecting money from persons who rent rooms from him with the intention to fix a door or put the room in shape but will fail to honour the obligation. Even though the said persons had paid additional money apart from the rent advance paid him (defendant). The witness (PW1) stated he received the money (GH¢480.00) from the plaintiff and handed over to the defendant. This the defendant failed to challenge. This was a clear indication that the plaintiff paid (GH¢480.00) as rent advance to the defendant. It was the defendant’s allegation that he refunded the amount plaintiff allegedly paid to him but he could not prove it. Evidence before court indicated that the plaintiff paid money to defendant as rent advance and fixtures which amounted to GH¢1,015.00. On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff has prove his case. The defendant is liable to the claim. By Court: Judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of GH¢1,015.00. Cost of GH¢300.00 for the plaintiff for the cause. (SGD.) H/W CHRISTIAN HEVI-AFFUFLU MAGISTRATE 4