TUAH vs. AMOAH [1979]DLHC1120

Date	1979-12-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1120

ROGER KORSAH J.

ADU GYAMFI FOR THE APPELLANT.

OWUSU-BEMPAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1979]DLHC1120
																																						<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" >TUAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AMOAH<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 815<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:
21 DECEMBER 1979<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

ADU GYAMFI FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

OWUSU-BEMPAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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 1.0pt 0in">

ROGER KORSAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ROGER KORSAH J.<o:p></o:p>In this
appeal from the judgment of the District Court Grade I, Kumasi, delivered on 13
May 1973, the appellant bases his dissatisfaction on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“(a) the
plaintiff failed to discharge the burden on him and therefore the trial
magistrate erred in entering judgment for him; and <o:p></o:p>(b) the
whole trial was unsatisfactory as the trial magistrate failed to make any
findings on the issue <o:p></o:p>joined
between the plaintiff and the defendant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Briefly,
the plaintiff’s case was that some time in December 1971, or January 1972,
there arose a dispute between himself and the defendant, who is his nephew,
over the management of the plaintiff’s record shop. In that dispute he
threatened to take the shop away from the defendant. Friends and relatives
therefore met at the shop and effected a settlement between the parties. The
gist of the settlement was that the plaintiff was to allow the defendant to run
the shop. It was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff from time to
time would go and take stock of the business done, and that the goods (being gramophone
records) which the plaintiff was leaving in the shop for the defendant were
worth ¢700. He also left stock-in-trade consisting of loudspeakers, changer and
an amplifier. No value was placed on these.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant took over the shop and ran it up to April 1972. On 5 April 1972, the
plaintiff wrote to the defendant intimating his desire to take stock with him.
For three days thereafter the shop was closed and the defendant was nowhere to
be found. He had opened a shop of his own somewhere else. When the plaintiff
eventually gained access to his shops, all that was left therein were eleven
records, an amplifier and a changer. His loudspeakers were gone.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff on several occasions demanded the return of his goods or their value
from the defendant, but the defendant failed to comply with his demands. In the
result he commenced proceedings against the defendant claiming as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“The
plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for the sum of ¢818 being the value
of the plaintiffs goods which the defendant removed and converted same to his
own use without the consent of the plaintiff, which the defendant has refused
and still refuses to pay despite repeated demands by the plaintiff.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The extra
¢118 being the value of the loudspeakers.<o:p></o:p>