FABRIGHAM PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. v. KWAMINA ESHUN, TINA ESHUN AND EASY ACESS PHARAMACEUTICALS

Plaintiff, A Pharmaceutical company per its General manager, Kwasi Oduro Scott on

17/10/2022 issued out of this court a writ of summons with affidavit in support seeking:

1. Recovery of liquidated sum of GHc 21,256.333 being the outstanding balance of

pharmaceutical drugs supplied to Defendants between 21st and 24th January.

2. Interest thereon from 21st January,2022 to the final payment.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

Plaintiff is a registered pharmaceutical company D1 and D2 are married couples whilst

D3 is a registered company that deals in the retail of pharmaceutical products. Through

a Tv advertisement on 21st and 24th January, 2022 the Defendants took a stock of its

pharmaceutical products to the tune of GHc 62,357.97 on credit with agreement that

one month grace period will be given to the Defendants to settle the debt. That

defendants made a part payment of GHc

10,000.00 leaving outstanding balance of GHc 52,357.97 to be paid.

That in view of the default Plaintiff went for some of stocks on 23/3/2022 and on 29th

June, 2022 to the tune of GHc 31,101.64 leaving an outstanding balance of GHc 21,256.33

to be paid. That all efforts to get the Defendants pay the money has proved futile, hence

the instant suit.

DEFENDANTS CASE

Defendants initially caused appearance and responded to the Plaintiff’s claim.

Defendants partially admitted the quantum of supply, but contended that there is

discrepancies in the claim. Defendants intimated that upon the default of payment on

31/3/2022 they made an official return of stock, an amount of GHc 27,936.00 and that on

29/6/2022 Plaintiff came and took assorted medicine on stock to the tune of GHc

33,499.26 without any court order. Defendant denied emphatically that they are not

owing Plaintiff as being claimed.

It is trite mentioning that Defendants thereafter boycotted the court notwithstanding

hearing notices serves on them.

EVALUATION OF THE FACTS AND APPLICATION OF LAW

The legal issues for determination is:

i. Whether or not Defendant is liable.

ii. Whether or not Defendant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

The evidential rule in civil cases is that the burden of proof rests upon the party who

substantially asserts the affirmative of his case. In the case of Lamptey alias Nkpa vrs.

Fanyie and Others (1989-90) 1 GLR 286 the Supreme court held that on general

principles, it was the duty of the Plaintiff to prove his case. However, when on a

particular issue he had led some evidence, then the b