ANTHONY KUMI vs. KAMASA AMEZUYI ASIKUMAH AND THOMAS GADI [2014]DLCA4568

Date	2014-04-09
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. HI/40/2012
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA4568

HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING)

ADJEI J.A.

ACKAH-YENSU (MS) J.A.

MR. KWESI BLAY FOR THE APPELLANT

MR. AUGUSTINE ARVOH MENSAH FOR THE REPONDENT

[2014]DLCA4568
																																						<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" >ANTHONY KUMI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<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; KAMASA AMEZUYI
ASIKUMAH AND THOMAS GADI&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.&nbsp; HI/40/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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, 2014<o:p></o:p>

MR.
AUGUSTINE ARVOH MENSAH FOR THE REPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>HONYENUGA, J.A.<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal by the plaintiff/appellant against the decision of the High Court,
Tarkwa dated the 3rd day of February, 2011.&nbsp;
The said judgment dismissed the plaintiff/appellant’s suit and awarded
costs of GH¢1,000.00 against him.<o:p></o:p>The
facts culminating into this appeal are that one Appolo, a brother of the 2nd
defendant/respondent approached the plaintiff/appellant to sign a bail bond for
the 2nd defendant/respondent.&nbsp; The
plaintiff/appellant signed the bail bond when pressure was put on him to do
so.&nbsp; The 1st defendant/respondent
informed the plaintiff/appellant that the 2nd defendant/respondent had two
tower lights with Engineers and Planners Company Limited which would yield
income to liquidate the 2nd defendant/respondent’s indebtedness.&nbsp; The plaintiff/appellant repaired the tower
lights at a cost of GH¢800.00.&nbsp; After it
had worked for two months, the seller by a Court Order seized them because the
2nd defendant/respondent did not fully pay for them.&nbsp; The plaintiff/appellant got to know that the
defendants/respondents were business partners who urgently needed funds to
resuscitate their joint enterprise.&nbsp; The
plaintiff/appellant claimed that Suit No. E2/3/07 was a ruse intended to
defraud him and that at the time of the suit none of them was indebted to the
other.&nbsp; The plaintiff/appellant contended
that the judgment obtained as a result of that suit be set aside on the ground
of fraud.&nbsp; The 1st defendant/respondent
denied that he was in any business with the defendant/respondent and that he is
a teacher by profession and the said suit was vigorously pursued because the
2nd defendant/respondent owed him the equivalent of GH¢499.52.&nbsp; The plaintiff/appellant was not coerced but
paid the debt for their mutual benefit.&nbsp;
The 1st defendant/respondent contended that after the judgment, the
plaintiff/appellant invited him to his house and in the presence of his wife
and the absence of Appolo, but no issue of tower lights were discussed and that
he got to know them through the proceedings in court.&nbsp; The 1st defendant/respondent also contended
that the plaintiff/appellant had no capacity to initiate the instant suit
against him because he did not seek leave of the 2nd defendant/respondent as by
law and further that the action was tainted by fraud and brought in bad
faith.&nbsp; The 2nd defendant/respondent did
not file an appearance or a defence.&nbsp;
After pleadings closed the court set down the following issues:-<o:p></o:p>“(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
the plaintiff has locus standi or capacity to initiate this suit.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
the defendants are business partners.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
the plaitnff signed the bail bond intended to defraud the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
Suit No. E2/3/07 was a ruse intended to defraud the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;(e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
the plaintiff is motivated by fraud.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;(f)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs that he seeks.<o:p></o:p>During
the hearing, the parties testified but called no witnesses.&nbsp; The learned trial judge after addresses,
delivered his judgment on the 3rd day of February, 2011 and dismissed the
plaintiff/appellant’s claim with costs of GH¢1,000.00 against him and in favour
of the 1st defendant/respondent.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff/appellant being aggrieved of the dismissal of his claim, filed the
instant appeal based on the following grounds:-<o:p></o:p>“a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
judgment is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial.<o:p></o:p>b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
trial judge erred in law when he failed to set</main>