The Plaintiff’s claim was for an amount of GH¢75, 400. 00 together with interest as well as general damages for breach of contract.
The Plaintiff’s case was that she was a businesswoman trading in textiles/clothing materials.
The Defendant, a businessman had collected textile materials worthGH¢75, 400. 00 from her in 2010. He had failed to pay to her the amount owed.
The Defendant caused his Solicitor to enter appearance for him but failed to file a defence.
The Plaintiff therefore applied for and obtained judgment in default of defence on the liquidated claim.
Although the Defendant was served with the application for judgment in default of defence on 29th October 2013, he failed to file an affidavit in opposition, a defence or even to show up in court to be heard on the matter.
The matter was consequently adjourned for the Plaintiff to lead evidence in assessment of damages for breach of contract.
Hearing Notices served on him for 7th and 21st November 2013 went unheeded.
The court proceeded to hear the Plaintiff in the Defendant’s absence.
The Plaintiff told the court in her evidence on oath that the business relationship between herself and the Defendant was that she gave him goods on credit and he paid her accordingly.
However with this particular supply, he failed to produce the money.
As a result, it had affected her business.
According to her, she went for a bankloan to run her business.
Since she had not been able to repay the loan, the bankhad threatened to sell her house.
She had also been rendered unemployed by theDefendant’s refusal to pay her as all the money she had was in the Defendant’s possession.
She tendered in evidence the letter written to her by the bank.
Plaintiff’s Counsel in his address has argued that the direct cause of the failure of Plaintiff’s business was due to the Defendant’s actions.
As a result, the court should award the Plaintiff the sum of GH¢158, 000. 00 being the current state of indebtedness to the Bank.
He cited the cases of Victoria Laundry (Windsor Ltd) v. Newman Industries Ltd (1949) 2 KB 528 and Bogoso Gold Ltd v. Ntrakwa & Anor(2011) SCGLR 415 in support of his stance.
The court is to determine whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought in spite of the fact that the Defendant never came to court to contest the case.
In the case of Re: West Coast Dyeing Ltd v. Adams & anor (1987/88) 2 GLR 561, the court held that when a party refused to attend the trial and to testify, t
