ELIAS PREKO, ANOR vs. MEPROLIM GHANA LTD. [2013]DLHC15067

Date	2013-04-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTR 23/10
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC15067

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

GODFRED YEBOAH DAME FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

DAVID BOAFO FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2013]DLHC15067
																																						<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, ANOR<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MEPROLIM GHANA LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 9TH
APRIL 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>GODFRED
YEBOAH DAME FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT<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;">

</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;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">JUDGEMENT<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>(2)