KWAME TIAKA v. JOHN ASARE & ANOR
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff supplied second-hand ladies' shoes worth GH¢100,560 to the Defendants, who agreed to pay by January 14, 2014. However, only GH¢46,000 has been paid so far. The Plaintiff sought to recover the unpaid balance of GH¢54,560. The 1st Defendant attributed non-payment to the inferior quality of goods and the 2nd Defendant claimed illiteracy, denying her involvement in the agreement. The court found that the Plaintiff had indeed supplied the goods and the Defendants were bound by their agreement to pay. The claim of inferior goods was rejected as unsubstantiated. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiff, granting the recovery of GH¢54,560, post-judgment interest, and GH¢2000 in costs.
JUDGMENT
This is an action for the recovery of the sum of GH¢54, 560 being the unpaid balance of goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. The 2nd Defendant has denied being a party to the sales agreement resulting in this debt. The 1st Defendant also alleged that the last supply of goods made by the Plaintiff were mainly inferior and are still in stock to the knowledge of the Plaintiff.
These are the issues set down for trial:
Whether or not the Plaintiff supplied goods worth GH¢ 100,560.00 to the Defendants on credit?
Whether or not the parties agreed that Defendant would pay up the cost of the goods on or before the 14th of January, 2014?
Whether or not the goods were of inferior quality?
Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons?
The facts giving rise to this case are well captured in the evidence -in-chief of the Plaintiff given on 24/02/2015. According to the Plaintiff, he supplied the Defendants with second hand ladies shoes to the tune of GH¢100,560.00 about three years ago. He demanded a written schedule of re-payment because of delays at the instance of the 1st Defendant in respect of earlier supplies. Thus, the 1st Defendant caused an agreement to be prepared which the Plaintiff subsequently signed. That agreement was admitted in evidence as exhibit A. Continuing, the Plaintiff said the Defendants ought to have made full payment by the end of the year 2014, but only GH¢ 46,000.00 has so far been paid by the 1st Defendant. Consequently, the Plaintiff said he made both oral and written demands for payment as per exhibit B, but the Defendants have refused to pay the amount outstanding. Concluding, the Plaintiff denied the Defendants assertions that the unsold goods are of inferior quality and the demand for them is low. He urged the court to compel the Defendants to pay the balance outstanding.
During cross-examination by counsel for the Defendants, the Plaintiff denied that exhibit A covers all supplied made by the Plaintiff when that was suggested to him. Instead, he maintained that exhibit A covers only the 4th container of goods supplied to the Defendants. In the words of the Plaintiff "exhibit A was made before the 1st Defendant came for the goods" and that he insisted that the 1st Defendant's wife be made a party to the agreement since they sell the goods together and the previous payment had delayed. The Plaintiff however admitted that after the 1st Defendant had made his own sel