SOLOMON NTRAKWA vs. G.P.R.T.U. [2000]DLCA6976

Date	2000-02-17
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: 83/99
Citation No.	[2000]DLCA6976

BROBBEY JA (PRESIDING)

BADDOO JA.

AFREH JA

[2000]DLCA6976
																																						<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" >SOLOMON NTRAKWA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>G.P.R.T.U.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: 83/99. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 17TH FEBRUARY 2000.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>BROBBEY
JA (PRESIDING), BADDOO JA., AFREH JA<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BROBBEY,
JA.:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This action started at the Sekondi High Court
where the respondent was the plaintiff and the appellant was the defendant. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff claimed two reliefs. The first was for an order for the payment of thirty-one
million, five hundred thousand cedis being agreed compensation for preventing
the plaintiff from using his petrol station for business since 1990. The second
was an order for the payment of interest on that sum at the rate of 45% per
annum from 1st September until the date of payment. After evidence had been
taken in a full trial, judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The defendants, hereafter referred to as the
appellants, then appealed to this court. Their original grounds of appeal were
as follows.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“(a) The learned trial judge erred in giving
judgment for the plaintiff having regard to the evidence on record. <o:p></o:p>(b) The learned trial judge erred in
awarding interest on the said sum. <o:p></o:p>(c) The learned trial judge erred in
awarding cost of three million cedis. <o:p></o:p>(d) Additional grounds of appeal will
be filed on receipt of the record of appeal”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Four additional grounds of appeal were filed
and these were that: <o:p></o:p>“(D) The learned trial judge erred in
law in not dismissing the plaintiff’s claim as the same ought to have been
evidenced in writing as it was a matter affecting an interest in land<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(E) the learned trial judge erred in not
having the case sent to the High Court, Tarkwa, when an objection to its
jurisdiction in terms of venue had been raised. <o:p></o:p>(F) The learned trial judge's
evaluation of the evidence was wrong and thereby erred in giving judgment for
the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(G) The learned trial judge should have
dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, as it was clear that the judgment in exhibit
B of suit No. Ls 18/95 and entitled J.K. Ntrakwa v. G. P. R. T. U. was wrong
and that the same could not be relied upon.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In his statement of case, counsel for the
appellant argued grounds A and F together. He started by contending that the
plaintiff’s case was based on a previous action in the High Court. But that
action was instituted in the name of one “J.K. Ntrakwa” while the plaintiff in
the instant case was called “Solomon Ntrakwa.” The plaintiff in the instant
case could not use that judgment because that name did not refer to him. The
plaintiff sufficiently explained that issues in his evidence when he averred
that that was his father’s name and further that it was his father who
commenced the action before he continued it. The plaintiff’s evidence on that
issue was equally sufficient answer to the point made by the appellant when he
said that exhibit A in which a demand was made for the unpaid amount was
written on behalf of J.K. Ntrakwa and not Solomon Ntrakwa. <o:p></o:p>Another
point made on behalf of the appellant was that Shell Company and not the
respondent or his father operated the station. That did not help the
plaintiff's case. This is because in this country petrol stations are operated
on behalf of oil companies like Shell Company. The companies themselves do not
run stations. This is a fact so notorious that judicial notice can be taken of
it. In any case, the appellant has admitted paying rent to the respondent, and
not Shell Company. That fact is an admission that the appellants accepted the
respondent as the one with authority to negotiate business in respect of the
land in question. <o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the appellant also argued that the PW1 who testified for the plaintiff was
the plaintiff’s brother in law and therefore his evidence should not have
weighed much on the trial judge or should have been disregarded. The answer to
that submission is that the mere fact that a witness is related to a party is
no ground for the evidence of that witness to be rejected or disregarded. That
rule seems to have been originated in the case of ADAI v. ANANE [1973] 1 GLR 144 in which the late Osei-Hwere J (as
he then was) held (in the head note of the report) that<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“A plaintiff in an action for a declaration of
title assumed the very heavy burden of proof and he could not discharge that
onus by merely calling his relations to support his evidence. To do so would
invite the failure of his case.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;That sta</main>