FRANCIS MAINOO SARPONG v. MR. DANSO
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a dispute where the Plaintiff sought to recover GH¢13,000.00 paid to the Defendant for renting a pharmacy shop space. The Pharmacy Council denied the Plaintiff a license, leading to a request for a refund, which the Defendant did not honor. Although the Defendant counterclaimed for rent, the court found the Plaintiff's testimony more credible, leading to partial success on the counterclaim and awarding the Plaintiff GH¢12,400.00 with interest and costs.
JUDGMENT
By his endorsement on the writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 14/11/14, the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of GH¢ 13,000.00 and interest thereon from the Defendant.
The Plaintiff's case is that he paid a total sum of GH¢13,000.00 to the Defendant for a space to operate a pharmacy shop but immediately the Pharmacy Council refused to grant him the license to do so, he informed the Defendant who promised to refund the money. It is the persistent failure of the Defendant to refund the said amount to the Plaintiff that has brought about the instant suit.
Even though the Defendant did not deny receipt of the amount claimed, he pleaded that the Plaintiff took possession of the premises in January 2014 by mounting a banner " pharmacy to open soon". He alleged that the tenancy agreement was for ten years at a monthly rent of GH¢200.00 and it was when he demanded the outstanding amount in October, 2014 that the Plaintiff informed him of the Pharmacy Council's refusal to give him a license to operate. The Defendant therefore counterclaimed against the plaintiff for the sum of GH¢2000.00 being rent for the ten (10) months that the Plaintiff was in possession.
The only issues to be determined are: (i) Whether or not the Defendant owes Plaintiff GH¢13,000.00? and (ii) whether the Defendant is entitled to his counterclaim.
Whereas the onus of proof of the first issues rests on the Plaintiff, the Defendant bears the burden of proof of his counterclaim. This is so because each party who has made positive allegations which have been denied must necessarily prove the same. The nature of this burden was expounded by Kpegah JA (as he then was) in Zambrama V Segbedzie (1991) 2 GLR 221 as follows:
"The correct proposition is that, a person who makes an averment or assertion, which is denied by his opponent, has the burden to establish that his averment or assertion is true. And he does not discharge this burden unless he leads admissible and credible evidence from which the fact or facts he asserts can properly and safely be inferred. The nature of each averment or assertion determines the degree and nature of that burden"
A party on whom the evidential burden rests is expected to lead concrete and convincing evidence so that by the preponderance of the evidence on record, the court will find his case to be more probable than not. If his case is not convincing on the balance of probabilities, he losses.
Certain matters have to be resolved before