YARROH VRS NTOSOH (A2/05/2024) [2023] GHADC 1151 (11 October 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT DAMBAI ON WEDNESDAY, 11TH OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP ALHASSAN DRAMANI, ESQ. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUIT NO: A2/05/2024 YAW YARROH OF DAMBAI PLAINTIFF VRS KWAKU NTOSOH DAMBAI ANYABOR DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF- PRESENT DEFENDANT- ABSENT JUDGEMENT The Plaintiff herein issued a Writ of Summons from the registry of this Court claiming against the defendant the following reliefs: i. ii. Recovery of GH¢2,000.00 Interest on the above stated amount of GH¢2,000.00 from June, 2023 till date of final payment. iii. Costs. THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF The case of the Plaintiff who described himself as a commercial driver was that in June 2023 Defendant hired Plaintiff’s services to convey Defendant’s personal belongings from Accra to Dambai. According to Defendant the parties bargain and settled on GH¢2,000.00 as the fee for Plaintiff’s services. Plaintiff said he has since conveyed Defendant’s items to Dambai as agreed but Defendant has refused to pay the money despite repeated demands by Plaintiff. Plaintiff stated that Defendant has evinced an intention not to pay the money unless he is compelled by an order of this court. Defendant was duly served with the writ and several hearing notices but he failed to appear before the court or file any process to defend himself. A principle of law is that when a party is given the opportunity to lead evidence in support of his stance or in defence of the allegations against him but he deliberately declines to avail himself of that opportunity, the court will be entitled to proceed with the trial to a 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 v Tandoh [1984-86] 2 GLR 561. Also, see also Republic v High Court Accra, Ex parte Akita, civil motion JS/7/210 dated 17/02/2010. In the instant case, I will accordingly make deductions, draw conclusions or make findings on the basis of the evidence adduced on the record. After carefully examining the Plaintiff’s writ and evidence before this court, I am of the considered view that the issues for determination are: 1) Whether there was an agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant for Plaintiff to convey Defendant’s personal belongings from Accra to Dambai for a fee of GH¢2,000.00. 2) Whether the Plaintiff fulfilled his part of the agreement i.e. by conveying Defendant’s items to Dambai. 3) Whether Defendant failed to pay the agreed amount of GH¢2,000.00 to Plaintiff. Before determining the issues, I will briefly touch on the burden of proof. The law is settled that it is the duty of the Plaintiff to prove his or her case for he who alleges must prove. In other words, it is the party who raises an issue essential to the success of his case who assumes the burden of proving such. The burden of proof is statutorily defined in sections 10 (1) and (2), 11 (1) and (4) and 12 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (Act 323). The burden of proof in civil cases has been explained in Adwuben v Domfeh [1996-97] 1 SCGLR 660. In the instant case, the burden lies on the Plaintiff to adduce sufficient evidence to convince the court that his claim is more probable than not. I now proceed to determine the issues. I shall deal with all the three issues supra together. The Plaintiff’s evidence is that in June, 2023 the Defendant hired his services to convey Defendant’s personal belongings from Accra to Dambai at a fee of GH¢2,000.00. According to Plaintiff he fulfilled his part of the agreement by conveying the items to Dambai with his truck. However, the Defendant has failed or refused to pay the money despite repeated demands on the Defendant. From the record, I have no justifiable reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Plaintiff which evidence was given on oath. The agreement between the parties was also supported by consideration which is in the form of money. On the evidence I hold that there was an agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant for Plaintiff who is a commercial truck driver to convey Defendant’s personal belongings from Accra to Dambai for a fee of GH¢2,000.00. I further find that pursuant to the said agreement the Plaintiff indeed conveyed Defendant’s personal belongings from Accra to Dambai. The evidence on the record shows that the defendant failed or refused to pay Plaintiff the agreed fee of GH¢2,000.00 after Plaintiff delivered Defendant’s items to Defendant at Dambai. There is also evidence that the Plaintiff made repeated demands on Defendant for payment, but the Defendant refused to do so. From the foregoing, it is obvious that the Defendant breached the oral agreement by refusing to pay to Plaintiff the GH¢2,000.00 as contained in their agreement. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a recovery of the GH¢2,000.00. A maxim of contract law is pacta sunt servanda, meaning treaties or contracts are binding upon the parties that entered into the treaty or contract in other words agreements must be kept. For the reasons given above, the defendant is found liable to the claim. Judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff to recover GH¢2,000.00 from Defendant. Defendant is to pay interest on the GH¢2,000.00 at the commercial rate from June, 2023 till date of final payment. Cost of GH¢800.00 is awarded in favour of Plaintiff against Defendant. SGD H/W ALHASSAN DRAMANI DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 11TH OCTOBER, 2023.