AMOYAW DANIEL v. OSOFO OF AKYEM AFOSU

Plaintiff claim against the defendant for;

a. Recovery of GH¢1,500.00 being balance of cost of Pragia with Registration No. NR 1515-19 the plaintiff sold to the defendant in November 2021.

b.Current Interest Bank Rate of 20% per Annum from November 2021 till the final day of Judgment.

c.Cost.

Plaintiff is a retired cocoa research officer, resident at Akyem Afosu. The defendant is a businessman resident at Akyem Afosu. In November 2021, the plaintiff offered his used commercial Pragia (tricycle) with registration number NR 1515-19 for sale to the defendant in the sum of GH¢4,000.00. The defendant made part payment of GH¢2,500.00, leaving balance of GH¢1,500.00 which the defendant promised to pay within two weeks but failed. Despite persistent demands the defendant has still failed to pay the

GH¢1,500.00 to the plaintiff. Wherefore plaintiff claims against the defendant as per the writ endorsed.

The defense of the Defendant was that although he admits that the plaintiff offered his tricycle with the registration number NR 1515-19 for sale to him in the sum of GH¢4,000.00. Defendant argued he made an initial payment of GH₵2500.00 leaving a balance of Gh₵1500.00 but did not promise to pay the balance in two weeks.

It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff knew that the said tricycle was faulty so a verbal agreement was made to use the outstanding balance of GH₵1500.00 for repairs of the said tricycle.

Defendant submits the tricycle has been at the workshop since November, 2021 and the repairs is still ongoing. And an amount of GH¢3,620.00 has been incurred in repairing the tricycle from November, 2021 to date.

Defendant contends the plaintiff sold the item on deceit and thus, prays to the honorable court to strike the matter.

Defendant is called Reverend Samuel Oppong. He is a pastor and also a tricycle rider. He was at home when Plaintiff came to tell him he had a Pragia for sale at ₵5000.00 He enquired to know about the problem with the Pragia and Plaintiff told him the tyre and battery were spoilt. He opted to buy it at ₵4000.00 instead and made part payment of ₵2,500.00 on condition that when he fixed the battery and tyre and it worked Defendant will give Plaintiff the balance of ₵1500.00. He agreed and went to buy the tyre and battery. Plaintiff wished to introduce a fitter said until he sends his Pragia to the shop. It was towed to the shop. The fitter said the cost of the repairs will be more than ₵3000.00 so Defendant decided t