STEVEN OPOKU WARE vs. NSIAH GYIMAH [2013]DLHC3896

Date	2013-05-20
Suit No.	SUIT NO.OCC/7/12
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC3896

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

SULLEY SAMBIAN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

F.K. BUOR FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[2013]DLHC3896
																																						<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" >STEVEN OPOKU WARE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NSIAH GYIMAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMECIAL
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.OCC/7/12&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 20TH MAY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>SULLEY
SAMBIAN 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">

</div>CORAM:<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>

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

</div>On 13/09/2011, the Plaintiff herein
instituted this action against the Defendant herein claiming an amount of
GH¢13,000.00 being the outstanding balance on car engines supplied to the
Defendant at his own request, together with interest.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was alleged in the Plaintiff’s
statement of claim that&nbsp; in July 2010, a
number of engines were supplied to the&nbsp;
Defendant at his request&nbsp; and
he&nbsp; made a total payment of twenty- two
thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 22,000.00) leaving an&nbsp;
outstanding balance of thirteen thousand Ghana Cedis ( GH¢13,000.00).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendant did not dispute the
transaction but alleged that the balance outstanding is GH¢9,050.00.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Three issues were set down for trial
as follows:<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">Whether
 or not in July, 2010 the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with engines at
 a cost of GH¢35,000.00<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">Whether
 the Defendant has made a total payment of GH¢22,000.00 to the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">Whether
 the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>At the trial, evidence was adduced
on behalf of the Plaintiff by his lawful attorney, Martha Opoku-Ware. She gave
details of the items supplied to the Defendant on credit in the following
manner: <o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2;
 tab-stops:list .5in">(5)
 pieces Istana engines @ GH¢1,100.00&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; GH¢&nbsp; 5,500.00<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2;
 tab-stops:list .5in">(3)
 pieces Musso engines @ GH¢ 8500.00&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; GH¢25,500.00<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2;
 tab-stops:list .5in">(4)
 pieces 4 cylinder Musso engines @ 1,100.00&nbsp; GH¢&nbsp; 4,400.00<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2;
 tab-stops:list .5in">(1)
 piece Musso Turbo engine @ GH¢1,100.00&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; GH¢&nbsp; 1,100.00<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo2;
 tab-stops:list .5in">(20)
 pieces 5 Musso engines @ GH¢1000.00&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; GH¢20,000.00<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>In support of these figures, the
Plaintiff’s attorney tendered a copy of a record of transactions between the
parties as exhibit B. From exhibit B, the price of the Musso engine is given as
¢8,500.00 which translates to GH¢850.00. Thus, the GHc 8,500.00 mentioned in
the Plaintiff’s attorney’s evidence cannot be right. If the court reads it as
GH¢ 8,500.00, it will shoot up the Plaintiff’s claim. I notice that the entries
in exhibit B were recorded in the old Cedis. Taking the oral and documentary
evidence of the Plaintiff’s attorney as a whole, it is my considered opinion
that the conversion of ¢8,500,000.00 in to Ghana Cedis has brought about a
mistake. The amount must therefore be read as GH¢ 850.00 which corresponds to
the Defendant’s first entry in exhibit 1, albeit in the old Cedis. She told the
court that the balance outstanding on the above transactions is GH¢13,000.00.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;It turned out in cross-examination that this
obviously civil matter was reported to the Police and that the Plaintiff’s
attorney agreed to accept an amount of GH¢ 9,050.00 as the Defendant’s
indebtedness. This part of the cross-examination is reproduced for emphasis:<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1">
 <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="17" type="A">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l3 level2 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list 1.0in">In
 the presence of the police you admitted that the Defendant was indebted
 to you in the sum of GH¢9,050.00<o:p></o:p></li>
 </ol>
</ol>