GEORGE TAWIAH v. B.A a.k.a KOFI ADU

CLAIM:

The plaintiff’s claims is for the recovery of cash the sum of Gh¢1,750.00 with break down as follows:

a) Gh¢1,250.00 being plaintiff's fair share of 104 palm trees he gave to the defendant to distill alcohol on 1st June, 2022.

b) Gh¢500.00 being capital the plaintiff gave to the defendant to help in the distillation of the alcohol.

c) Costs.

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE:

It is his case that on the 1st day of June, 2022, upon agreement, he gave 104 palm

trees to the defendant to distill alcohol so that they will share the proceeds. That he

gave the defendant Gh¢500.00 as capital to help in the distillation.

That his fair share of the business was Gh¢1,250.00 which the defendant has refused

to give to him. Hence this action, praying for the reliefs endorsed on the writ of

summons. The plaintiff called one witness to support is case.

SUMMARY OF DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE

It is his case that the plaintiff gave him 100 palm trees to distill alcohol so that they

share the profit.

That he employed labourers to uproot the palm trees, who charged Gh¢15.00 per

tree, making a total of Gh¢1,500.00. That the plaintiff gave him Gh¢500.00 to be

given to the labourers as advance so that when he distill the alcohol, they will pay

them the balance.

That he also gave Gh¢300.00 to the labourers as their “chop money” or feeding fees,

which is a trade usage. That they agreed that they will give one gallon (popularly

called “Kuffour gallon”) of alcohol they will distill first to the labouers as their

“chop money”.

That he also bought sugar worth Gh¢400.00 for the project and the plaintiff paid

Gh¢40.00 for its conveyance to the project site. That he also provide a fowl and

“Kasapreko” Gin with Gh¢90.00 to pacify the river gods since where they were

distilling was close to a river.

That since it was raining in June, it was difficult to tap enough or the required level

of palm wine from the palm trees to distill into alcohol because the weather was too

cold or and not conducive.

That one day in June, when he got to the project site, he realized that somebody had

removed all the equipment and materials from the site and when inquired from the

plaintiff about this, the plaintiff admitted that he did, and that they should change

site since, the place they were distilling was too close to the river which is too cold

for that purpose. That the plaintiff promised to buy barrels to be taken to the new

site so that he could continue the wok, but waited f