KERECOM COMPANY LIMITED v. KUMASI METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE, J
Areas of Law
- Commercial Law
- Contract Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved the Plaintiff's claim for an outstanding debt of GH365,934.19 from the Defendant for waste management services, leading to a trial that examined the issues of the outstanding debt, the authority of Nana Peasah to receive payments, and the Plaintiff's entitlement to claims. The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff for a sum of GH82,815.00 plus interest and costs.
JUDGMENT
On 22nd March, 2016 the Plaintiff instituted the present action against the Defendant herein. By an amended statement of claim filed on the 31st July, 2017, Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is for:
i. An order directed to the defendant to pay an amount of GH₵365,934.19 being an outstanding indebtedness for waste management services render to the defendant by the plaintiff.
ii. Interest on the GH ₵365,934.19 at the prevailing commercial bank rate at the time of judgment from 30th April, 2013 till date of final payment.
iii. Costs including legal fees.
Per the amended statement of claim, the plaintiff’s claim hinges on the fact that the defendant has failed or refused to pay the outstanding debt owed it as a result of its services of street sweeping and drain cleaning within the central business district of the Kumasi Metropolis for sixteen (16) months.
The defendant averred in its amended statement of defence that it has paid all its indebtedness to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons.
ISSUES
After unsuccessful attempts at settlement, the following issues were set down for trial namely:
1. Whether or not the defendant owes the plaintiff the sum of GHC 390,732.40?
2. Whether or not the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff to the tune of Gh₵ 390,732.40 or thereof?
3. Whether or not the late Nana Peasah (deceased) was the chief executive officer or director of the Plaintiff Company?
4. Whether or not Nana Peasah had authority to receive any payments on behalf of the plaintiff company?
5. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to its claim?
The GH₵390,732.40 figure as captured in the claim was subsequently amended to GH₵365,934.19. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL SUITS GENERALLY
As in all civil suits, the onus of proof first rests on the party whose positive assertions have been denied by his opponent. Depending on the admissions made, the party on whom the burden of proof lies is enjoined by the provisions of sections 10, 11(4), 12 and 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) to lead cogent evidence such that on the totality of the evidence on record, the court will find that party's version of the rival accounts to be more probable than its non-existence. Indeed, this basic principle of proof in civil suits expounded in Zambrama V Segbedzie (1991) 2 GLR 221 has been subsequently applied in numerous cases including Takoradi Floor Mills v Samir Faris (2005/06) SCGLR