HELOO vs. TETTEY [1991]DLHC2027

Date	1991-06-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLHC2027

ACQUAH J.

MENSAH-ETSI FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

HONYENUGA FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

[1991]DLHC2027
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">HELOO<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">TETTEY<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>[1992] 2 GLR 112<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MENSAH-ETSI FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,<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">

HONYENUGA FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF ACQUAH J.<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal against the judgment of his Worship Mr. W. K. N.
Addo, sitting at the District Court Grade I, Keta. The judgment which is dated
28 January 1991 awarded in favour of the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter
referred to as the plaintiff) the sum of ¢256,600 against the
defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). The interesting
legal point in this appeal is on the circumstances under which a court can
award interest on a judgment debt and at what rate such interest can be
awarded. And because this issue has not received much attention in the law
reports, I propose to consider it into some details. But first let me deal with
preliminary matters.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff who was a school mate of the defendant, has been a
trader in polythene rubber bags. She is at Dzelukope, while the defendant is at
Kedzikope. In September 1987 she requested her friend, the defendant, who was
then not working, to help her in the selling of the rubber bags. The defendant
obliged and assisted the plaintiff. In consideration of her services, the
plaintiff initially made regular financial savings in the form of “susu” for
the defendant. In 1989 the plaintiff became pregnant and so in November of that
year she sent the defendant to Accra to collect the rubber bags from her
supplier. The defendant went for ¢87,000 worth of rubber bags. The plaintiff’s
case was that when the defendant brought those bags, the defendant handed over
¢15,000 worth of the bags to her, leaving a balance of ¢72,000 with the
defendant for sale. She said that in December 1989 the defendant gave her
¢25,000 out of the ¢72,000 leaving a balance of ¢47,000. She alleged that her
supplier in Accra later on came down to see her at Dzelukope with ¢187,000
worth of the rubber bags which she handed over to the defendant because she had
at that time delivered. The total value of bags with the defendant, according
to the plaintiff, stood at ¢234,000. Out of this money, the defendant first
paid ¢19,000 and later on 24 August 1990 paid ¢20,000. Since then the plaintiff
contends that the defendant had made no further payment and she had refused to
pay the balance despite repeated demands. She therefore took the instant action
at the said District Court Grade I, Keta court claiming from the defendant:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.5in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a).&nbsp; “the sum of ¢195,000 being the
balance of an amount of ¢234,000 which the defendant owed to the plaintiff
which balance the defendant has refused to refund in spite of several and
repeated demands.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.5in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b).&nbsp; 28 per cent interest on the
amount from December 1989 till the date of judgment. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:.5in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(c).&nbsp;
¢50,000 being general damages for the inconvenience caused to the
plaintiff whilst demanding the debt.”<o:p></o:p>In support of her case, the plaintiff called her supplier in
Accra, John Kukorku, as her witness. He testified on the rubber bags he had
supplied to the plaintiff, stating the value of those he brought from Accra to
the plaintiff after the latter had delivered. He also recounted the
unsuccessful attempts he made to obtain his money from the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>The defendant in her defence, does not deny that she was requested
by the plaintiff to assist in the selling of the rubber bags. Her case is that
although she admits owing the plaintiff in respect of sales of the rubber bags,
she does not owe her as much as ¢195,000. She admits owing ¢34,000. She said
that before going to collect the ¢87,000 worth of bags from Accra, she owed the
plaintiff ¢66,000. She then went for the ¢87,000 worth of bags and gave ¢30,000
worth to the plaintiff, but she later went back to the plaintiff and coll</main>