JUDGMENT OF ACQUAH J.
This is an appeal against the judgment of his Worship Mr. W. K. N. Addo, sitting at the District Court Grade I, Keta. The judgment which is dated 28 January 1991 awarded in favour of the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) the sum of ¢256,600 against the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). The interesting legal point in this appeal is on the circumstances under which a court can award interest on a judgment debt and at what rate such interest can be awarded. And because this issue has not received much attention in the law reports, I propose to consider it into some details. But first let me deal with preliminary matters.
The plaintiff who was a school mate of the defendant, has been a trader in polythene rubber bags. She is at Dzelukope, while the defendant is at Kedzikope. In September 1987 she requested her friend, the defendant, who was then not working, to help her in the selling of the rubber bags. The defendant obliged and assisted the plaintiff. In consideration of her services, the plaintiff initially made regular financial savings in the form of "susu" for the defendant. In 1989 the plaintiff became pregnant and so in November of that year she sent the defendant to Accra to collect the rubber bags from her supplier. The defendant went for ¢87,000 worth of rubber bags. The plaintiff's case was that when the defendant brought those bags, the defendant handed over ¢15,000 worth of the bags to her, leaving a balance of ¢72,000 with the defendant for sale. She said that in December 1989 the defendant gave her ¢25,000 out of the ¢72,000 leaving a balance of ¢47,000. She alleged that her supplier in Accra later on came down to see her at Dzelukope with ¢187,000 worth of the rubber bags which she handed over to the [p.116] defendant because she had at that time delivered. The total value of bags with the defendant, according to the plaintiff, stood at ¢234,000. Out of this money, the defendant first paid ¢19,000 and later on 24 August 1990 paid ¢20,000. Since then the plaintiff contends that the defendant had made no further payment and she had refused to pay the balance despite repeated demands. She therefore took the instant action at the said District Court Grade I, Keta court claiming from the defendant:
"(a) the sum of ¢195,000 being the balance of an amount of ¢234,000 which the defendant owed to the plaintiff which balance the defendant has refused to refund in spit
