RICHARD ANDOH v. OBED BONNEY

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff, took out this writ of summons against the defendant on the 25th day of

April, 2023, claiming from the defendant, reliefs as follows:

1. Recovery of the cash sum of GHC 30,000.00; and

2. Costs.

The defendant was served with the writ of summons and a hearing notice by the

bailiff of the Court by substituted service on the 3rd day of May 2023, but the

defendant failed to attend Court. Pursuant to Order 25 rule 1(2)(a) of the District

Court Rules, 2009 (C.I. 59), the Court proceeded with the trail to allow the plaintiff to

prove his case.

The plaintiff in his evidence-in-chief told the Court that sometime 2022, he

contracted the defendant to supply him with roofing sheets to roof his house.

Plaintiff indicated that he made initial payment of GHC 50, 000 in respect of which

defendant supplied him with a quantity of roofing sheets which were inadequate for

the entire building roofing project. Plaintiff further averred he made subsequent

payment of GHC 30,000 to the defendant for yet another supply of roofing sheets

which defendant has failed to honour despite persistent demands. He thus prayed

the Court to assist him recover his monies. Plaintiff tendered in evidence the

following documents:

1. a warranty issued by the defendant’s company by name Coastside Roofing

and Construction Limited, in respect of the transaction (Exhibit A);

2. a receipt issued by the defendant’s company in respect of the initial payment

of GHC 50,000 (Exhibit B);

3. a Republic Bank pay-in slip issued in respect of the payment of GHC 29,

810.00 (Exhibit C); and

4. a Republic Bank pay-in slip issued in respect of the payment of GHC

50,000.00 (Exhibit D).

It is trite law and a part of the two-pronged rules of natural justice that a party to a

dispute should be given the opportunity of being heard, which rule is commonly

expressed in latin as the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Serbeh-Yiadom v Stanbic Bank (GH) Limited1

stated as follows:

“ It is a statutory and well-known principle of law that a person should be

given the opportunity of being heard when he is accused of any wrong doing

before any action is taken against him”. Emphasis mine.

The operative effect of the failure to hear a person was pronounced upon by the

Supreme Court in the case of The Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex parte Salloum

(Senyo Coker, interested party)

2 as follows:

“Equally so, if a party is