THOMAS YALLEY v. MRS. ADUTWUMWAA & OR
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff, after paying GH¢16,000 to the Defendants for a KIA vehicle, sought either reimbursement or the vehicle's delivery. The Defendants acknowledged receiving the payment but blamed delays and additional charges on the Plaintiff. The court found that the Plaintiff proved his payments, and that the Defendants engaged a clearing agent. Since the vehicle was for the Plaintiff, the court awarded him GH¢9,000 plus interest pending final payment. Defendants were also liable for rental charges due to their agent's delays.
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff in this case has sued the Defendants herein who have been described as mother and son for the recovery of GH¢16,000.00 and interest thereon paid to them. Alternatively, the Plaintiff is seeking recovery of an unregistered KIA K2700 being the vehicle the Defendants promised to sell to him.
The Plaintiff's case is that sometime in the year 2012 and after he had become acquainted with the Defendants, the defendants agreed to arrange with their relative abroad to purchase a KIA K2700 for him. As a result, the Plaintiff alleged that he paid a total amount of GH¢8,000.00 to the Defendants for the purchase and also paid the clearing charges but the Defendants refused to hand over the vehicle to him after the same had been cleared from the port.
The Defendants' also put up the defence that at the commencement of the transaction, the Plaintiff informed their relative who lives abroad on phone that the price range of the truck in issue was GH¢ 25,000.00 to GH¢40,000.00 in Ghana whereupon the Plaintiff was made to deposit GH¢3000.00. They did not dispute that a total payment of GH¢8000 was made to them towards the purchase of the vehicle but that the Plaintiff delayed in paying for the clearing charges and by the time their relative stepped in to save the situation, additional charges had been incurred by way of rent.
This court has to decide these issues:
1. Whether or not the Plaintiff paid sixteen thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢16,000.00) to Defendants to purchase a vehicle for him?
2. Whether or not the Defendants engaged a clearing agent to clear the said vehicle?
3. Whether or not the Defendants purchased the vehicle for the Plaintiff?
4. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim?
This being a civil suit, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof of the assertions contained in his statement of claim which have been denied by the Defendants. He is required to adduce credible evidence, documentary, oral or both to satisfy the mind of the court that his assertions are true. If he is able to do so, the burden of persuasion will shift to the Defendants to introduce evidence to the contrary. In the event that the Defendants fail to introduce credible evidence which outweighs that of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff will be deemed to have succeeded in proving his assertions. That is because by the provisions of sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act 1975, NRCD 323, the court is enjoined to assess all the evidence on record on the