ARHIN vs. KISIWAA [1978]DLHC1130

Date	1978-07-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1978]DLHC1130

MENSA BOISON J.

OHENE ANOBAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

ADJEI MENSAH FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1978]DLHC1130
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ARHIN<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>KISIWAA<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1979] GLR 311<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
12 JULY 1978<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

OHENE ANOBAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

ADJEI MENSAH FOR THE DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>In this
case the plaintiff sues the defendant for ¢1,152 damages, being the prize,
which, but for the defendant’s default, he would have been entitled to on
certain lotto tickets.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff, now a farmer at New Adubeasi, was then at Sunyani. The action arises
on these facts: On 12 June 1974, the plaintiff bought from the defendant, as
lotto receiver No. 1834 in Sunyani, three lotto tickets, Nos. 17, 81 and 69. At
the draw in Accra on 15 June 1974, those three numbers were declared as having
won each respectively a prize of ¢384. Those tickets Nos. 17, 81 and 69 were
issued respectively from lotto booklets numbers NC.241/757166, NC.241/757168
and NC.241/757173. After the necessary processing procedures of the said
winning tickets, at the headquarters in Accra, of the Department of National
Lotteries, the plaintiff was given in return for the said three tickets
acknowledgement vouchers, exhibits A 1-3.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>However,
in further pursuit of his prize the plaintiff was eventually met with the rude
shock of being told that the Director of the Department of National Lotteries
had declared the plaintiff’s winnings void. It was explained that the sale of
the said tickets was irregular; it having been found that those three tickets
were not authorised allocation to the defendant. According to the directors the
three tickets, evidenced by exhibits A 1-3, had originally been issued to lotto
seller No. 1258 in whose account the sale of A 1-3 had been properly
acknowledged. It was the contention of the plaintiff that by the act of the
defendant, in offering to him those tickets, he has suffered damage to the
extent of the prize money of ¢1,152.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant did not appear at the trial nor did her counsel. From her statement
of defence, however, her stand may be summed up as follows: although she admits
lotto receiver’s number 1834 as hers, she denies selling any tickets from the
aforesaid booklets; and in particular Nos. 17, 81.69 to the plaintiff or at
all: or ever stamping the said tickets with her registration No. 1834. Her case
was that the said lotto booklets NC.241/757166, NC.241/757168 NC.241/757173
were never issued to her by the director, nor did she ever act as agent to the
receiver to whom those tickets officially allotted, who was revealed to be
lotto receiver No. 1258. The defendant accounts for the presence of her
registration stamp on the said three tickets to be the result of fraud or some
error.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
material issues thus joined in my view are whether or not the said tickets were
sold to the plaintiff by the defendant and whether or not she had stamped
tickets Nos. 757166, 757168, 757173 with her registration stamp. Also the
questions whether the defendant was the registered lotto receiver No. 1834, and
whether or not the tickets referred to in exhibits A had been among the tickets
officially allotted to her by the director fall to be decided. Lastly is the
issue whether or not tickets Nos. 17, 81 and 69 were winning tickets in the
draw of 15 June 1974, and how much was the winning prize on each.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is
no difficulty in making the following findings of fact: (1) that the defendant
was a registered lotto receiver registered as No. 1834: (2) that for the week
in question tickets or booklets Nos. NC.241/757166, NC.241/757168 and
NC.241/757173 were not among her authorised allocation from the director.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>