ELIAS PREKO & ANOR (PLAINTIFFS) vs. MEPROLIM GHANA LTD. [2013]DLHC15066

Date	2013-04-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTR 23/10
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC15066

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

GODFRED YEBOAH DAME FOR PLAINTIFFS

DAVID BOAFO FOR DEFENDANT

[2013]DLHC15066
																																						<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" >ELIAS PREKO &amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>&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; vs. <o:p></o:p>MEPROLIM GHANA LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

SUIT NO. FTR 23/10&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 9TH APRIL 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0in;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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>Before
I go into the delivery of my opinion, I wish to state here and now that the
defendant herein had failed and or refused to file its concluding statements –
address. He has also failed to react to the amended writ and statement of claim
filed by the plaintiffs. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs herein took this action against the defendant, a cleaning
institution. The reliefs have been endorsed on the Writ of Summons and Statement
of Claim. There was an amended suit and amended Statement of Claim upon leave
granted by the Court on the 1st February, 2013. I do not intend to
reproduce the reliefs in this judgment. <o:p></o:p>This
instant case hinges on a very simple issue. This was borne out in the evidence
adduced before the Court. Mr. Zio Odillion, the 2nd plaintiff took
Elias Preko’s Lexus LX 470 to the defendant for cleaning. It has been
established without any controversy that the plaintiffs use the defendant’s services.
On that fateful day when Zio Odillion sent the Lexus LX 470 to the defendant to
clean. The car was driven to the yard of the defendant by Zio Odillion and he
was to pick the car after cleaning had been done. He kept the said car with the
defendant company. It came out during the trial that there are designated rules
to be followed when one brings his car for cleaning services. It was after 4
pm, when Zio Odillion enquired about the car, that he was informed the Lexus LX
470 could not be started. The vehicle was finally towed to the premises of
Toyota Ghana Ltd which diagnosed that the immobilizer was activated. This, to
Toyota Ghana, was as a result of the opening of the doors, whilst the ignition
and radio were on. It also came out during trial that the defendant’s employees
were of the mistaken belief that there was no fuel in the car and as such bought
fuel in a container and poured it into the fuel tank of the Lexus LX 470.<o:p></o:p>The
parties could not compromise on who was negligent, and or caused the failure of
a vehicle that was driven smoothly to the yard of the defendant for cleaning.
At first, the defendant agreed to pay for the purchase of the affected part but
later reneged. This resulted in the present action. <o:p></o:p>The
defendant denies liability. As such, it behoves on the plaintiff to lead cogent
evidence for the tribunal of fact to believe what they are saying. The
plaintiffs, therefore, bore the burden of proof. The Evidence Act, 1975,
N.R.C.D. 323 section 11(1) states <o:p></o:p>“For the purposes of this
Act, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to
introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling on the issue against that
party.”<o:p></o:p>11 (4): In other
circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce
sufficient evidence which on the totality of the evidence leads a reasonable
mind to conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its
non-existence.”<o:p></o:p>And
at section 12, the Act provides<o:p></o:p>(1)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp; Except
as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof of a preponderance
of the probabilities.<o:p></o:p>