CHARLES OWUSU SEKYERE VS ANITA TWUM BARIMA
June 17, 2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU
Areas of Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
June 17, 2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Presiding over the Ghana High Court, Justice Samuel K. A. Asiedu decided a dispute between a Ghana-based man and his U.S.-resident romantic partner arising from a breakdown in their relationship. The man claimed he had provided US$46,000 in September 2011 for the woman to procure a BMW X6 for him, demanded a refund when no car was delivered, and sued to recover the money. The woman maintained the transfer was a gift motivated by affection, and that he had promised to buy her the car to make her happy. After an initial default judgment was set aside, the court examined evidence including the parties’ past gift-giving, prior vehicle purchase and shipment, and the man’s admissions about seeking to make her happy. Applying Ghana’s Evidence Act sections 14 and 17 and case law on burdens and weak cases, the court held the man failed to prove indebtedness and dismissed the claim, awarding no costs.
By a writ of civil summons the plaintiff claims against the defendant a. Recovery of the sum of $46, 000. b. Interest from September 2011 to date of final payment.
The defendant entered appearance and later filed a statement of defence.
After an unsuccessful pre-trial settlement proceeding, the matter was set down for trial.
However, the defendant failed to turn up for the trial despite the service on her of hearing notice.
After taking evidence from the plaintiff, the court entered judgment in his favour against the defendant.
Upon application however, the said judgment was set aside and the defendant given leave to cross examine the plaintiff after which the defendant gave evidence and announced the closure of his case.
The facts of the case are that the plaintiff and the defendant were in a love relationship which started from the year 2009. From the evidence on record it appears he gave numerous gifts to the defendant who also gave gifts to the plaintiff.
Indeed, the defendant lives in the United States of America and comes down to Ghana occasionally.
The plaintiff alleges that he gave money to the defendant to buy him a BMW X6 in 2011 but the defendant failed to buy the car.
The plaintiff then demanded a refund of the money but the defendant kept telling him stories and refused to refund the amount.
As a result the plaintiff broke up the relationship with the defendant and later issued the instant writ against the defendant for the recovery of the amount.
The defendant says that the money was a gift from the plaintiff and that it was not given to her for the purchase of a car for the plaintiff.
From the pleadings therefore two main issues crops up for determination of the court.
The first issue is whether or not the plaintiff gifted the US$46, 000 to the defendant.
The second issue which is closely related to the first issue is whether or not the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of US$46, 000 and consequently whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his claim against the defendant herein.
In his statement of claim the plaintiff pleaded in paragraph 2 that in September 2011 he gave the sum of $46, 000 to the defendant to buy him a BMW X6 car.
In response, the defendant pleaded in paragraph 3 of her statement of defence the “the defendant denies paragraph 2 of the statement of claim and says that the $46, 000 given to her by the plaintiff was for her to purchase a car for her own use.
In further answer defendant will