STIVO COMPANY LIMITED vs. UNITED KEJETIA RAILWAYS TRADERS ASSOCIATION & ORS [2013]DLHC3897

Date	2013-11-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO.RPC/147/12
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC3897

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

ALFRED ANIM QUARSHIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

K. AMPEM DARKO FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[2013]DLHC3897
																																						<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" >STIVO COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>UNITED KEJETIA RAILWAYS
TRADERS ASSOCIATION &amp; ORS<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/147/12&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; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 7TH NOVEMBER, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ALFRED ANIM QUARSHIE 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>

</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>As the saying goes, a labourer
deserves his wages. The Plaintiff Company in this case is so much aggrieved by
the failure of the Defendants to pay the balance outstanding on some market
stores it constructed for them. He is therefore claiming an amount of GH¢ 22,
535.00 together with interest at the prevailing bank rate from 6th
June, 2012 to the date of final payment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was the Plaintiff’s case that
based on an agreement between the parties, the company constructed a three
storey 12 unit market stores for the benefit of the Defendants at an agreed
cost of one hundred and forty four thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢144,000.00).&nbsp; The company alleged that these stores have
been completed and handed over to the Defendants who are using the same but
have refused to settle their final bill of GH¢22,535.00.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendants denied that the said
stores have been completed. They contended that by the agreement between them,
the Plaintiff was to complete the construction within five (5) calendar months
commencing 10/06/2011 and ending 11/11/2011. As regards payment, the Defendants
averred that they were to make instalment payments to the Plaintiff at any
stage of the contract that the contractor deemed it necessary to make claims
for work done but not paid for. Also, the Defendants alleged that full payment
was to be made upon completion and after the Plaintiff had remedied all
defects. As at the commencement of this action, the Defendants claimed that
they are in occupation of only the completed portion of the stores. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was also their case that the non completion
of the stores has caused them a great inconvenience. Consequently, they
counterclaimed for an amount of GH¢30,000.00 for breach of contract.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The issues for determination are
these:<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:l1 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">Whether
 or not the Plaintiff has completed the construction of the market stores
 and handed them over to Defendants?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">Whether
 or not the Defendants have paid the contract sum in full?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">Whether
 or not any of the parties is in breach of the Agreement dated 1st
 June, 2011?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;
 tab-stops:list .5in">Whether
 or not Defendants are entitled to their counter –claim.?<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The evidential burden as well as the
burden of persuasion on issues (1) and (2) rest on the Plaintiff Company. This
is the burden placed on the company who has made these positive assertions in
its statement of claim by sections 11(1) and 10 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1975
N.R.C.D. 323.&nbsp; As was held in the case of
Zambrama v Segbedzi (1991) 2 GLR 221:<o:p></o:p>“…a party who makes an averment or
assertion, which is denied by his opponent, has the burden to establish that
his averment or assertion is true. And he does not discharge this burden unless
he leads admissible and credible evidence from which the fact or facts he
asserts can properly and safely be inferred. The nature of each averment or
assertion determines the degree and nature of that burden.” <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This principle has been applied in
cases such Continental Plastics v IMC Industries-Technik GMBH (2009) SCGLR 298
at 307. Having assumed the burden of proof as regards the said issues, the
Plaintiff will be required to adduce credible evidence so that on the totality
of the evidence, the court will find its case to be more pr</main>