NAN ENTERPRISE LIMITED v. MUBARAK ABUBAKAR
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff, a General Merchant, filed a lawsuit to recover GH¢76,911.00 from the Defendant for unpaid goods supplied in September and November 2013. The Defendant denied owing the amount but admitted receiving the goods and making some payments. The court determined that the Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence, including transaction records and testimony, proving the Defendant's indebtedness. The Defendant's claims of full payment were found inconsistent and unsupported by credible evidence. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff and awarded the total amount claimed, along with interest and costs.
JUDGMENT
By a writ of summons filed on 02/06/2014, the Plaintiff Company claimed the recovery of various amounts of money totaling GH¢76, 911.00 being the unpaid balances of goods supplied to the Defendant which he ought to have paid off by agreed dates in September and November, 2013 but has refused to do so. The Plaintiff also claimed interest on the amount owed.
The Plaintiff described itself as carrying on business as General Merchant whereas the Defendant is a businessman. On 09/09/2013, the Plaintiff averred that assorted food items totaling GH¢13,155.00 were supplied to the Defendant at his request. Again, on 29/10/2013 and 01/11/2013, various food items totaling GH¢4,806.00 and GH¢75,155.00 respectively were supplied to the Defendant. The Plaintiff also alleged that another supply of cooking oil worth GH¢3000 was made to the Defendant on 05/11/2013. However, goods worth GH¢ 6,050.00 which the Plaintiff was unable to supply were deducted from his indebtedness. For all these supplies, it is the Plaintiff's case that full payment was to be effected within 10 days from the date of transaction but the Defendant has demonstrated by his conduct that he will not pay the sum claimed.
The assertions on indebtedness were met with an outright denial by the Defendant. Although he admitted receipt of various goods worth GH¢75,155.00; GH¢13,155.00; GH¢ 3,000.00 and credit notes worth GH¢ 6,050.00, his version of the events is that he made full payment on or about November, 2013 and he is therefore not indebted to the Plaintiff. In another breath, he averred that the Plaintiff has turned down his request to be furnished with his actual indebtedness and that there is the need for accounts to be gone into for the determination of his actual indebtedness.
This court has been invited to determine the sole question of whether or not the Defendant owes the amount claimed by the Plaintiff. This being a civil suit, the Plaintiff who has made a debt allegation against the Defendant bears the onus of proof as required by law. In discharging this burden, the Plaintiff is required to introduce evidence that will make its case more probable than not. The legal basis for the degree and standard of proof are sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act 1975, NRCD 323. There are a host of judicial authorities on the nature of proof required in civil suits and indeed, both counsel made reference to a couple of such cases in their written submissions. These include the 1959 case o