DORIS ASIEDU BOTWEY v. SISTER AMOAKOA

The plaintiff claimed against the Defendant recovery of three lines of frozen fish the defendant

purchased from her three years ago. In the alternative the plaintiff claimed the current market

price, GH₵825.00 (eight hundred and twenty-five Ghana Cedis). The Defendant pleaded not liable

to the claim.

When the defendant pleaded not liable the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant

owed. The plaintiff’s case is that she had been trading with the defendant. The plaintiff testified

that the defendant bought two boxes of fish on 04/02/2021 but did not pay. That each box cost

GH₵160.00. And on another occasion the defendant sent an Okada rider to collect another box at

GH₵170.00. What this means is that the plaintiff wanted the court to believe that the defendant

owed GH₵490.00. The plaintiff added that the defendant made some payment. But she did not

complete the payments. So the parties reconciled their transactions and the defendant had an

outstanding balance of GH₵320.00 and the defendant again bought two boxes of fish at GH₵170.00

per box.

During cross-examination the defendant challenged the above assertions of the plaintiff. The

following cross-examination caught my attention.

Q: Do you remember when I came with Kaya to your place I paid GH₵200.00.

A: Yes

Q: Do you remember I gave GH₵200.00 to Brother Kwame to be given to you.

A: The two payments were in respect of earlier transactions.

Q: Do you remember when you told me I owed GH₵700.00; I paid GH₵400.00 and told you I

would use oil to defray my debt.

A: You owed me GH₵660.00 and you gave me GH₵350.00.

Q: I owed you GH₵300.00 and I gave you oil worth GH₵350.00 so you rather owe me

GH₵50.00.

A: You owed me GH₵660.00 and the oil you gave me was GH₵350.00, so you owe me

GH₵310.00.

From the above cross examination it appears to me that the plaintiff’s case contain some

inconsistencies. At the end of the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared to me that the plaintiff

wanted the court to come to the conclusion that the defendant owed GH₵660.00. But the defendant

owed GH₵310.00 after the defendant gave her oil worth GH₵350.00. Another inconsistency is the

fact that Kweku Antwi (PW1) who is the husband of the plaintiff testified that the defendant owed

GH₵300.00. This contradicts the plaintiff’s figures of GH₵660.00 and GH₵310.00. Apart from the

inconsistency in the figures PW1 claimed he had the records. PW1 never showed nor tendered any

records to the court. Wh