MAIMUNA ADAMS v. ERNEST ADOM & ANOR
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Commercial Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff sued to recover GH¢30,000.00 paid to the 1st Defendant for palm oil that was never delivered and claimed that the 2nd Defendant orally guaranteed this payment. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant but dismissed the claim against the 2nd Defendant as the guarantee was not in writing, thus unenforceable under Ghana's Contracts Act. The case emphasizes the need for written agreements in guarantees and the burden of proof principle in civil litigation.
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff commenced her action by a writ of summons and statement of claim issued on 25/06/2013. After two lawyers had abandoned her, she engaged the services of a third lawyer who filed an amended writ of summons and statement of claim with leave of the court on 02/02/2015. Before hearing could start, a fourth lawyer had come in and she also prayed for time to study the processes filed.
By the amended writ of summons and statement of claim, the Plaintiff sought to recover the sum of GH¢30,000.00 being the sum given to the 1st Defendant in September, 2011 for the supply of 1000 gallons of palm oil which he failed to do and the 2nd Defendant promised to refund same and thus became surety for the payment of the sum but has since failed to pay despite repeated demands for payment. She also sought to recover interest on the sum claimed. In her amended statement of claim, she gave details of how the transaction which culminated in this debt came about. Specifically, after her husband had allegedly introduced the 1st Defendant to her and upon alleged representations made by the 1st Defendant, she parted with the money for the supply of the quantities of palm oil in issue.
The Defendants denied liability in their statement of defence filed on 6/07/2013. In the said statement of defence, the 1st Defendant averred that he first transacted with the Plaintiff 's husband and did supply him with palm oil worth GH¢28,000.00. And, when he became satisfied, he gave him another GH¢28,000.00 and GH¢ 4,000.00 for the supply of additional 500 and 140 jerry cans of Palm oil which he did supply. He further asserted that he has fully discharged all his responsibilities to supply the Plaintiff (through her husband) with all the palm oil for which he was given monies on three occasions. The 2nd Defendant also averred that she never told the Plaintiff that if her son, the 1st Defendant did not pay, she will pay the Plaintiff.
The issues agreed to be tried as these:
Whether or not 1st Defendant represented to the Plaintiff that he could supply her with 1000 gallons of Palm oil?
Whether or not as a result of that representation Plaintiff paid GH¢ 30,000.00 to 1st Defendant?
Whether or not 2nd Defendant undertook to refund the said GH¢ 30,000.00 to Plaintiff at the end of September, 2011?
Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to her claims?
This is a purely civil suit and the rules of evidence require that the Plaintiff who has dragged the Defendants to court