Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
February 28, 2023
DISTRICT COURT
CORAM
JUDGMENT
The facts of the case from which this action arose are that the Plaintiff on the 2nd day of
December, 2015, rented her carpet to the Defendant for a rental fee of GHc200 a week. The
Defendant upon taking delivery of the carpet reneged on his obligation to pay the rental
fee and much to the chagrin of the Plaintiff failed to return the carpet upon several
requests. Due to the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff made frantic efforts to retrieve the
carpet and when it became apparent that the Defendant was being evasive, she instituted
criminal action against him. The Plaintiff discontinued with the criminal action against
him, following the institution of the present suit and resorted to solely
seeking redress through civil action. The Plaintiff
instituted the instant action on 13th of September, 2022, for the following reliefs:
a. Recovery of cash, the sum of Four Thousand, Five Hundred Cedis
(GHC4500) being the current cost of a carpet the defendant rented from the
Plaintiff since 02/12/2015 but which he has refused to return same despite repeated
demands.
b. GHC200 rent charges per week from 2nd December, 2015 till date of final
payment. c. Costs
The court in determining the claim the Plaintiff's action was hinged on, sought to
determine when the Plaintiff's cause of action arose, due to the claim of the Plaintiff that
the contract was entered into in December 2015 (but omitted to state the time period
within which payment was due), as actions in contract are statute barred after six years.
Again, as the concept of limitation is both a mixture of fact and law, the court had a duty
to consider the testimony and evidence of the parties to determine whether or not the
action was barred by statute.
The main issues for determination are
i) whether or not the action is statute barred ii) whether or
not there was a valid contract between the parties iii)
whether or not the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff
rental charges of ghc200 per week till date of final payment
EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
The case as recounted by the Plaintiff revolves around a contractual transaction that took
place in September, 2015 (at variance with the period of December 2015 as stated on her
writ). The Plaintiff in her evidence to the court stated that sometime in September, 2015,
one Thomas Oppong who testified in the suit as PW2, and who it emerged at trial, was an
apprentice of the Defendant herein, in her absence
AI Generated Summary
This District Magistrate judgment concerns a civil claim by a funeral rentals operator against Nana Appiah Kusi after a woolen carpet hired for funeral purposes was not returned. Although the Plaintiff’s writ referenced December 2015, the court found the transaction and accrual of the cause of action more likely occurred in August to mid-September 2016, based largely on PW2’s detailed recollection and corroboration by other witnesses. The Plaintiff had pursued criminal charges, which were discontinued after unsuccessful settlement attempts; the Defendant offered a replacement carpet that the Plaintiff rejected as inferior. Addressing limitation, contract formation, and liability for rental charges, the court held the suit timely, found no enforceable contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant (the arrangement being with PW2), declined weekly rental charges, but awarded the carpet’s current value with interest, nominal damages, and costs, relying on preponderance of evidence and admissions.