ASARE ORIGINAL PAY ALL vs. BAFFOUR [2001]DLCA1171

Date	2001-01-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2001]DLCA1171

FARKYE JA

GBADEGBE JA

OWUSU-ANSAH JA

DAVID KUDOADZI FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

J K YEBOAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

[2001]DLCA1171
																																						<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">ASARE ORIGINAL PAY ALL<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">BAFFOUR<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
2 GLR 165<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="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 25 JANUARY 2001<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>DAVID
KUDOADZI 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">

J K
YEBOAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

FARKYE,
GBADEGBE AND OWUSU-ANSAH JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Gbadegbe JA. <o:p></o:p>By
his action herein commenced before the Circuit Court, Accra the
plaintiff-respondent (herein after referred to as the plaintiff) claimed
against the defendant-appellant (herein- after referred to as the defendant)
the payment of the sum of ¢74 million, being the value of wins drawn on lotto
numbers on 21 October 1995. The evidence on the record is that the defendant is
engaged in the conduct of private lotto under the provision of the National
Weekly Lotto (Amendment) Law, 1989 (PNDCL 223) and as such is licensed to
operate a lotto other than that undertaken by the Department of National
Lotteries.<o:p></o:p>It
appears from the transcript that the controversy herein arose when the
defendant claiming that the plaintiff had not paid for the stakes before the
numbers were drawn refused to pay the proceeds of the wins. In his evidence,
the plaintiff contended that he staked the numbers which were drawn out of
several to the tune of ¢482,000. That he did not pay immediately, he having
come to an arrangement with the agent of the respondent, the first plaintiff
witness, the latter was to pay immediately for the stakes in order that he
refunded the same later. In his evidence he stated that the following day, ie
22 October 1995, a day after the draw, he turned up in the house of the said
agent, the first plaintiff witness, to pay the value. When, however, he
presented his winning tickets in the expectation of receiving his proceeds, the
defendant would not pay on the ground that he had credited the stakes. Since
the matter could not be resolved, the plaintiff took out the writ of summons
herein claiming as herein before mentioned.<o:p></o:p>In
his evidence the plaintiff called the agent, the first plaintiff witness who is
described in the judgment of the lower court as a “writer” whose evidence was
to the effect that the plaintiff did, in fact, ask him to pay on his behalf,
which he did and that on the following day, he came to make a refund of the
amount to him. The defendant strenuously contended at the trial that the stakes
of the plaintiff were credited and that when the first plaintiff witness’s
returns of sales were checked he had a deficit of ¢518,000 of which the winning
tickets in contention were part.<o:p></o:p>At
the end of a full scale trial, the learned trial judge found as a fact that the
plaintiff had made the requisite payment. He expressed himself in his judgment
thus:<o:p></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">“I
will prefer the evidence of the plaintiff and the first plaintiff witness, (the
writer) that the plaintiff’s tickets were paid for on his behalf by the writer
before the draw. Consequently, I will find that the plaintiff had a valid
ticket which he won on 21 October 1995. These valid tickets on the evidence
before the court entitled the plaintiff to the amount of ¢7,440,000. I will
therefore give judgment to the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of
¢7,440,000. I will award the plaintiff interest on the said sum from 21 October
1995, to the date of the judgment.”<o:p></o:p></span</main>