PATRICIA KANE v. HARUNA MUIRU, SIEDU ZAKARAI AND HAMID FUSEINI

JUDGMENT.

This judgment originates from the writ of summons issued by the Plaintiff against the

Defendants under the District Court Rules, 2009, CI 59, Order 2 rule 3 (6) for the

following reliefs: -

1. Recovery of two hundred and fifty (250) bags of ginger or the current price or

market value of the amount of thirty seven thousand, five hundred Ghana Cedis

(GH₵37,500.00) being the balance of an amount of fifty thousand Ghana Cedis

(GH₵50,000;00) the Plaintiff gave to the 1st Defendant to supply her with bags of

ginger, but the 1st defendant failed or refused to supply after several or repeated

demands and 2nd and 3rd defendants guaranteed to pay.

2. General damages for inconveniences caused to the Plaintiff.

3. Cost.

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER OF CLAIM.

Plaintiff is a business woman in Tema in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of

Ghana. The three defendants are residents of Yadzo and Kpandokope respectively. The

Plaintiff stated that in the year 2020, she advanced an amount of fifty thousand Ghana

Cedis (GH₵50,000.00) to the 1st Defendant to supply her with ginger which he failed to

supply. She continues that she reported the matter to the Police in Kadjebi, and the 1st

defendant paid cash the amount of eight thousand Ghana cedis (GH₵8,000.00 and added fifty bags of ginger leaving the outstanding balance of two hundred and fifty

(250) bags which current market value is the amount of thirty-seven thousand five

hundred Ghana Cedis (GH₵37,500.00) being the sum of money being claimed by her

(Plaintiff). She added that on the 15th day of June,2021, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants who

are father and a brother respectively to the 1st defendant prepare had an agreement

with the Plaintiff that at the end of February, 2022, they will supply the Plaintiff with

three hundred bags of ginger, but they only succeeded in supplying her with fifty (50)

bags leaving the outstanding balance of two hundred and fifty (250) bags.

The Plaintiff attached a photo copy of the alleged agreement to the writ of summons.

From the face of the records, the three defendants were seen and served with hearing

notices on the 27th day of January,2023. The Defendants failed to appear before the

court on the return date. The court again ordered for hearing notices to be served on

the Defendants and the Plaintiff was made to bare the cost of the service. The records

show that the defendants were served again as ordered by the court. Yet still, they were

absent