PHC Motors Ltd v. Kruger Brent Security
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JANAPARE A. BARTELS-KODWO (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involved a claim by the Plaintiff, a motor vehicle servicing company, against the Defendant, a security company, for an outstanding debt of GH¢52,689.40 for vehicle servicing performed. The Plaintiff provided job cards and invoices to support its claim but admitted under cross-examination that it did not possess all necessary supporting documents due to a flood incident. The Defendant denied owing the debt, citing lack of concrete evidence and their practice of prepayment before vehicle release post-servicing. The court held that the Plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof, especially since key supporting documents were missing, thus ruling in favor of the Defendant and awarding costs of GH¢5,000.00 against the Plaintiff. The case highlights key legal principles related to the burden and standard of proof, especially in the context of documentary evidence in contractual disputes.
The Plaintiff a limited liability company in the business of sales and servicing of various kinds of motor vehicles in Ghana took out this action against the Defendant Company registered and operating under the laws of Ghana among others as a security company for the following reliefs: (i) An order compelling the Defendant to pay forthwith to the Plaintiff, the sum of Fifty–Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty- Nine Ghana Cedis, Forty Pesewas(GH¢52, 689. 40) being the amount owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant up to and including 14th March, 2014.
ii) Interest on the said sum of Fifty –Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty Nine Ghana Cedis, Forty Pesewas (GH¢52, 689. 40) in accordance with terms of agreement between the parties from March, 2014 till the date of final payment.
iii) Costs, including legal fees.
iv) Any further or other relief.
PLAINTIFF’S CASE The Plaintiff’s case is that it had been servicing Defendant’s vehicles brought to its workshop upon agreed terms between them.
When it receives the Defendant’s vehicles at its premises, a job card is prepared, executed by the Defendant or its agent after which the service is carried out.
Subsequently the Defendant pays the Plaintiff for the service rendered as agreed on the job card issued and an invoice is presented for payment.
Plaintiff contends that the terms of the agreement are set out on both the job card and the invoice.
Suit No. RPC/125/14: PHC Motors Ltd vs Kruger Brent Security Page 1 of 12 According to the Plaintiff’s pleadings it serviced various vehicles for the Defendant with each covered by a requisite invoice to the tune of Sixteen Thousand, One Hundred Ghana Cedis, Fifteen Pesewas (GH¢16, 100. 15). And the terms of the service as set out on the face of the Job Card and the invoice attracted an interest of 0. 15% per day in respect of overdue invoices.
However, since September, 2013 several invoices have remained overdue with the Defendant failing, refusing or neglecting to pay same.
The Plaintiff asserts that as at 14th March, 2014, the Defendant owes it Fifty –Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty-Nine Ghana Cedis, Forty Pesewas (GH¢52, 689. 40). Despite demands for the said sum and the offer of a discount on the debt to encourage the Defendant pay the debt it has failed to do so hence this action to recover as per its reliefs.
THE DEFENDANT’S CASE The Defendant in its defense denied all the material allegations made by the Plaintiff.
It contended that the Plaintiff did