EMMANUEL DAPAAH KUNKUMA vs. NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORITY [2013]DLHC3861

Date	2013-11-04
Suit No.	SUIT NO.RPC/27/13
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC3861

ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

KWAME ADOM APPIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

JULIO DE-MEDEIROS FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[2013]DLHC3861
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">EMMANUEL
DAPAAH KUNKUMA<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORITY<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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">

SUIT NO.RPC/27/13&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 4TH NOVEMBER, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KWAME
ADOM APPIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF. <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">

ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.)
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>It is quite unusual for me to begin
my judgment with a question. This time round, I cannot help it. What is the
normal feeling when one suddenly wins a lottery? Some jackpot winners
interviewed at random across the globe expressed shock and disbelief. These
were some of their expressions: “…I’ve just got six numbers on the lottery and
I am having a brain spasm…; I am shaking like a leaf; absolutely fantastic!” I
can imagine the feelings and thoughts which might have gone through the
Plaintiff before me with regards to his alleged winning lottery coupon. And, in
other twist, he is in court over the prize money of GH¢17,040.00 which he wants
the Defendant to pay together with interest.&nbsp;
He must have experienced a climax and an anti-climax. The Defendant is
the National Lottery Authority (NLA).<o:p></o:p>The facts of this suit as captured
in the Plaintiff’s statement of claim are quite captivating. On 05/05/2012, the
Plaintiff staked the numbers 71-21 and 21-71 for the sum of GH¢80.00 in a
lottery run by the Defendant from an electronic device operated by it’s agent
at Konongo. His numbers were printed on a single coupon and turned out to be
among the winning numbers drawn on the same day.&nbsp; He averred that the prize money for the GH¢80.00
staked was GH¢17,040.00 after VAT deductions.&nbsp;
The Plaintiff allegedly made a photocopy of the ticket and took the
original to the Regional offices of the Defendant at Danyame, Kumasi for
registration. On reaching the said premises, he was wrongly advised by some
people who posed as workers of National Lottery Authority that unless he was
willing to discount the ticket, he had to take it to the Defendant’s accredited
banks to redeem the same i.e. Merchant Bank, Ghana Commercial Bank and
Agricultural Development Bank. The Plaintiff then took his coupon to the Juaso
branch of Ghana Commercial Bank where he was told that the amount on the single
coupon exceeded GH¢50.00 which was above their limit. He was advised to go back
to the NLA office. The heavens were open that day as I can see from his
statement of claim. He was soaked in rain and the ticket got wet. He then used
a pressing iron to dry the coupon and in the process damaged the features on
the original ticket. When he presented the damaged ticket to the NLA, he was
advised to petition its Head Office which he did and attached the original
partly damaged coupon, its photocopy as well as previously staked coupons with
the same winning numbers. Yet, the Defendant has declined his request to be
paid the prize money.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendant did not deny that the
numbers in dispute were among the winning numbers drawn on the day in question.
It also acknowledged receipt of the Plaintiff’s petition. The Defendant’s case
was that its activities are strictly regulated by the National Lotto Act, 2006
Act 722 as well as the National Lotto Regulations, 2008&nbsp; (L.I. 1948).By the provisions in&nbsp; its regulations, the Defendant averred that
online receipts can only be paid after the same have been validated. Since the
Plaintiff’s receipt could not be validated, payment was refused.<o:p></o:p>Other details in the Defence were
that on examining the coupon or receipt attached to the petition, the Defendant
observed that apart from its statutory logo which was partially visible, the
entire receipt had been damaged beyond any possible recognition and / or
identification of information contained therein. According to the Defendant,
regulation 18(2) of L.I. 1948 enjoined the Plaintiff to ensure that that the
numbers staked, the date of draw, the serial number of the receipts generated
and the bar codes are boldly inscribed on the receipt. Since the receipt
attached to the petition was so badly damaged and could not be validated and
/or authenticated to determine whether it was genuine, the petition was
declined. The Defendant invited the court to throw out the Plaintiff’s claim as
disclosing no cause of action against the Defendant. <o:p></o:p>The sole issue set down for trial is
whether or not the Plaintiff has a cause of action against the Defendant. If a
cause of action is found to exist, the court will then determine whether the
Plaintiff is entitled to his claims against the Defendant.<o:p></o:p>In my judgment in PRG Watch
Manufacturing v Joseph Attakora Misc/22/2012 dated 17/10/2013, I explained
‘cause of action’ as the basis of a lawsuit founded on legal grounds and
alleged facts which, if proved, would constitute all the "elements"
required by statute. In the dictionary of Law by LB Curzon, ‘cause of action’
is defined as: “a factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person
to obtain from the court a remedy against another person.” See also Letang v
Cooper (1964) 2 All ER 929 at 934 per Diplock LJ. With this yardstick, I will
assess the Plaintiff’s case. Thus, the Plaintiff will have to demonstrate to
the satisfaction of this court that he duly staked lottery run by the
Defendant, won and has a valid ticket to claim the prize.<o:p></o:p>Lottery activities in Ghana are
regulated by the National Lotto Act, 2006, Act 722 </main>