ALFRED WOYOME (PLAINTIFF) vs. TRIUMPHANT GLOBAL MINISTRIES & ANOTHER (DEFENDANTS) [2005]DLHC7518

ALFRED WOYOME (PLAINTIFF) vs. TRIUMPHANT GLOBAL MINISTRIES & ANOTHER (DEFENDANTS... [2005]DLHC7518

Date	2005-12-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO. AC 109/2004
Citation No.	[2005]DLHC7518

LORDSHIP YAW APPAU J.

ROBERTSON KPATSA ESQUIRE FOR PLAINTIFF.

ACE ANNAN ANKOMAH ESQUIRE FOR THE DEFENDANTS

[2005]DLHC7518
																																						<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" >ALFRED WOYOME<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TRIUMPHANT GLOBAL MINISTRIES &amp; ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT
NO. AC 109/2004&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:&nbsp;
16TH DECEMBER, 2005<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">ROBERTSON
KPATSA, ESQUIRE FOR PLAINTIFF. <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">&nbsp;ACE ANNAN ANKOMAH, ESQUIRE FOR THE DEFENDANTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>LORDSHIP
YAW APPAU J.<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;The plaintiff who said he was a businessman
living at Tesano brought this action against his former church (the 1st
defendant) of which he used to be a Deacon and its Head Pastor (the 2nd
defendant), requesting for the immediate re-payment of monies he said he
advanced to the defendants as loans. <o:p></o:p>These
monies, as endorsed on the writ of summons dated 18/6/2004 are: (a)
¢620,720,000.00 and (b) US$5,000. Plaintiff requested for immediate repayment
with interest from 9th August 2003 to date of payment.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;His pleaded case was that he was a member of
the 1st defendant church and a Deacon of the church until his purported removal
from the position of a Deacon by the 2nd defendant who is the head pastor of
the 1st defendant church. While a member of the church, he made several
personal donations to the church to ensure that the activities of the church
were not hampered by lack of funds. He again advanced loans to the defendants
without interest anytime defendants were in need of money. He particularized
the loans he said he advanced to the defendants under paragraphs 9, 10 and 11
of his statement of claim filed together with the writ on 18/6/2004. According
to him, the total of all these monies granted to the defendants as loans came
to ¢620,720,000.00 and US$5,000.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;He prayed the court to grant him judgment
since the defendants have ignored all demands made by him for the repayment of
the loans. <o:p></o:p>The
2nd defendant represented the 1st defendant. In their statement of defence
filed on 27/7/2004, the defendants categorically denied plaintiff's claim. They
denied that the plaintiff ever granted loans to the defendants to the tune of
¢620,750,000.00 and US$5,000 or to any tune and demanded strict proof of this
allegation by the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;According to them, when the plaintiff became a
member of the church he, like all other members, contributed financially to the
programmes and activities of the church by way of gifts, donations, offertory
and tithing. They described the plaintiff as someone who was always ready to
top up monies collected by way of appeal for funds for specific projects as a
way of expressing his appreciation for God's bountiful blessing upon his life.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;However, at a point in time, plaintiff and
others attempted to remove the 2nd defendant as the head pastor of the church
and when that failed, he resorted to this court action as a last resort. They
described the plaintiff's action as an afterthought and one brought in bad
faith and called for its dismissal. <o:p></o:p>The
main issues that came up for determination by the court were as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1. Whether or not the plaintiff ever granted
loans to the defendants to enable the defendants carry out programmes of the
church. <o:p></o:p>2.
Whether or not those monies given to the 1st defendant by the plaintiff was in
appreciation of Gods bountiful blessings upon his life. <o:p></o:p>3.
Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his claim or any of the reliefs
endorsed thereon. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff testified and called three witnesses. Two of the witnesses (i.e.
P.W.1 and P.W.2 by name Pastor Asomaning and Pastor Newman) were former pastors
of the 1st defendant church who have left the church just like the plaintiff
and established their own or joined other churches while the third (i.e. P.W.3)
who is a Liberian refugee in Ghana said he used to be an accounts officer and
administrator of the church but now a pastor. P.W.3, however, did not tell the
court how he became a pastor and the particular church in which he is a pastor.
<o:p></o:p>The
defendants, on the other hand, testified through the 2nd defendant but called
no witness.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is a notorious principle of law that he who
asserts must proof. This simply means that a plaintiff who comes to court to
make an assertion or to put up a claim against a defendant must lead
satisfactory evidence to prove that claim. The onus to establish his claim lies
on him and him alone. This is called the 'Burden of Proof' in Law. It always
rests on the party who makes an assertion.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;According to our Evidence Decree (1975) NRCD
323 and the highest court of the land, i.e. the Supreme Court, the standard of
proof required by law of a plaintiff or</main>