MENKISH IMPEX LTD, SUING PER ITS LAWFUL ATTORNEY JOHNSON COMPLEX (GH) LTD. vs. KWAME BOAMA TRADING AS KWAME BOAMA ENT. [2011]DLHC8198

MENKISH IMPEX LTD, SUING PER ITS LAWFUL ATTORNEY JOHNSON COMPLEX (GH) LTD. vs. K... [2011]DLHC8198

Date	2011-05-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO. C2/37/09
Citation No.	[2011]DLHC8198

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON

BABA AVIO FOR PLAINTIFF

F. K. BOUR FOR DEFENDANT

[2011]DLHC8198
																																						<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" >MENKISH IMPEX
LTD, SUING PER ITS LAWFUL ATTORNEY JOHNSON COMPLEX (GH) LTD.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KWAME BOAMA TRADING AS KWAME BOAMA ENT.<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT NO. C2/37/09&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
9TH MAY, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>BABA
AVIO FOR PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

F. K. BOUR FOR DEFENDANT&nbsp;&nbsp; <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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div>Plaintiff is a limited liability company that
is engaged in the sale of linoleum carpets, both as a wholesaler and retailer.
The defendant, on the other hand, is a customer of the plaintiff, in which
capacity he buys and retails plaintiff’s carpets. It is uncontroverted that the
parties had conducted the carpet business for some time before this action was
instituted. Plaintiff dragged its long time customer to court because it is
their case that he has defaulted in paying for some of the carpets supplied to
his company.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to the evidence of a representative
of the plaintiff, defendant was supplied 1010 rolls of carpet by the Accra office
of the company on 12/2/08 at a total value of GH¢39,310.00, but he has failed
and/or refused to settle the whole of this amount despite repeated demands. The
claim is for the recovery of the outstanding amount of GH¢12,510.00 plus
interest thereon.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his defence, the defendant denied he owed
the plaintiff. He averred that a representative of plaintiff rather invaded his
store in his absence, and made away with a quantity of carpets worth GH¢
32,060.00. He therefore counter-claimed for the recovery of this amount. He
also sought a declaration that the alleged seizure of the carpets from his
store is tantamount to an infringement of his constitutional and proprietary
rights. In addition, he claimed general, special and exemplary damages.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the pleadings, two issues clearly
present themselves for resolution. They are:<o:p></o:p>(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp; Whether or
not the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff to the tune of GH¢12,510.00 for
carpets supplied by the plaintiff to defendant company<o:p></o:p>(b)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp; Whether or
not the agents of plaintiff invaded the store of defendant and carried away
carpets to the value of GH¢32,060.00.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Since the plaintiff and the defendant have
made a claim and counter-claim respectively, the onus is on both of them to prove
their respective claims on a preponderance of probabilities.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the hearing of the suit, the Kumasi Branch
Manager of plaintiff supported by another worker of the company testified on
behalf of the plaintiff. For the defendant company, its owner led evidence, and
called two witnesses. The first witness was a store keeper of another store
near defendant’s place of business, and the second was his wife’s mother. I
shall hereafter refer to these witnesses for the defendant as DW1 and DW2
respectively, whilst the only witness for the plaintiff shall be called PW1.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>