ADJETEY ARSENE ADJEI v. ESSEKU FRANK AND JOSEPH AMARTEY
June 30, 2023
DISTRICT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR FESTUS FOVI NUKUNU
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
June 30, 2023
DISTRICT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
Per amended Writ of Summons, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants for the immediate refund of GH₵3,307.33 with interest from January 2020 till the final date of payment.
Plaintiff’s case is that he owns Luojia tricycle motor with number M19CR 9060 and after
the purchase, plaintiff had a job at Takoradi and had decided to dispose of it under a hire
purchase agreement. Plaintiff met defendants and 2nd defendant agreed to buy the tricycle for 1st defendant, his son. They bargained and agreed on GH₵18,000.00. They entered
into agreement on 11/11/2019 for work and pay for one year ending on 12/11/2020. It
is agreed that defendants are to pay GH₵375.00 a week or monthly sales of GH₵1,500.00.
That he released the tricycle to the defendant after they signed the agreement. That defendant operated the tricycle from 11/11/2019 to 10/2/2020 and parked it claiming the
motor got spoilt.
That plaintiff came down and realised that the tricycle was in a deplorable condition
within four months. Plaintiff’s further case is that defendants were to make sales from
11th November 2019 to 10th February 2020 which is GH₵ 4,653.33.
According to plaintiff, defendants paid GH₵2,255.00 leaving the balance of GH₵
2,368.33.00. Plaintiff spent GH₵ 939.00 to repair the tricycle which the defendants mishandled as per paragraph 4 of their agreement.
Plaintiff therefore jointly and severally claims refund of cash the sum of GH₵3,307.33
from the defendants.
On the part of the defendants, the 1st defendant failed to attend to court but the 2nd defendant attended court and represented 1st defendant in the trial. 2nd defendant’s case is
that they signed the agreement on 11th November 2019 but the tricycle was not released
Adjetey Arsene Adjei vrs. Esseku Frank & Anorr
to them that day. They agreed on weekly instalment of GH₵ 375.00 until final payment
is made. He denies that the tricycle was given to them but was given to his brother called
Shadrack Ackam which was wrongly stated in the agreement. He further states that he
(Shadrack) started working with tricycle on 12/11/2019 and that the agreement was prepared on 11/11/2019 in the afternoon. He also denies that the tricycle was in a
deplorable state. That he has been responsible for all repairs. He states that the tricycle
was parked on 21/12/2019 due to low turnover. He asserts that the tricycle was parked
at the 2nd defendant’s residence with the consent of the caretaker. He states that he acted
out of ignoran
AI Generated Summary
At the Circuit Court, His Honour Festus Fovi Nukunu adjudicated a dispute between Adjetey Arsene Adjei and Esseku Frank and another arising from a work-and-pay hire purchase of a Luojia tricycle (M19 GR 9060). Adjei agreed to sell for GH₵18,000, with weekly remittance of GH₵375 over a year from 11/11/2019. The tricycle was operated starting 12/11/2019, then parked at the defendants’ residence, allegedly with caretaker consent. Applying the Evidence Act’s burden of persuasion, the court found defendants failed to prove consent to park, failed to account for agreed sales, and mishandled the tricycle, which was not in good condition when parked. Receipts substantiated GH₵939 in repair costs. On the balance of probabilities, the court held defendants liable for GH₵2,315 outstanding accounts, GH₵939 reimbursement, and awarded GH₵1,000 costs.