BRIGHT MENSAH TSORDZINE v. THE MANAGER, ATOMIK BUSINESS PER MR. JONES

JUDGMENT

This judgement is the outcome of a writ of summons issued by the plaintiff against the

defendant under the District Court Rules, 2009. CI 59, Order 2 rule 3(6) for the following

reliefs:

1. An order of the court compelling the defendant to release one gas cooker which

the plaintiff purchased from the sales boy of the defendant at Kadjebi, on the 22nd

day of December, 2021.

2. An order of the court compelling the defendant to accept an amount of four

hundred and ninety-nine Ghana Cedis (GH₵499.00) being balance left with the

plaintiff to pay to the defendant as the full purchase price of the gas cooker

defendant’s sales boy sold to the plaintiff at Kadjebi.

3. Cost of this application

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER OF CLAIM

The plaintiff is a photographer resident at Kadjebi whiles the defendant is the Manager

of Atomik Business, having his head office in Jasikan with its branches in Kadjebi and its

environs. Plaintiff says that on the 22nd day of December, 2021, he purchased one gas

cooker from the defendant’s store at Kadjebi and made part payment of an amount of

five hundred Ghana Cedis (GH₵500.00) to the defendant’s sales boy. He continued that,

in the month of February, 2022, he went to the defendant’s store to pay the balance of the

amount of four hundred and ninety-nine Ghana Cedis (Gh₵499.00) to the defendant and

to take away the gas cooker. But, to his uttermost surprise, the defendants store was

locked. So, he (plaintiff) called the defendant on the available mobile phone number to

express his worry but the defendant told him that, his agent/ sales boy had embezzled

some money in the store and he (defendant) had reported to the police, Kadjebi. The

plaintiff added that his enquires from the police has established that the entire amount of

money allegedly embezzled by the sales boy had been retrieved by the police from the

agent/ sales boy. Yet still, the defendant has refused/ failed to accept the balance left from

the plaintiff despite several demands. Wherefore the plaintiff claims as per the reliefs

endorsed on his writ of summons.

On the face of the records, the defendant was seen and served but he decided to absent

himself from court. Hearing notices were ordered by the court, and served on the

defendant. He (defendant) however appeared on the 15th day of July, 2022, when his plea

was taken. He pleaded not liable to the reliefs of the plaintiff. The matter was adjourned

to a later date for the parties a