OSCAR RAPHAEL vs. FRANK AWUAH ADJEI & 3 ORS [2014]DLHC3884

Date	2014-03-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO.OCC/03/13
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC3884

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

OHENE-AMANKWAH GYAN FOR THE PLAINTIFF

HANSEN KODUA FOR THE DEFENDANTS

[2014]DLHC3884
																																						<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" >OSCAR RAPHAEL<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FRANK AWUAH ADJEI &amp;
3 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.OCC/03/13&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;DATE: 10TH MARCH, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>OHENE-AMANKWAH GYAN 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">

HANSEN
KODUA FOR THE DEFENDANTS<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;
font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;"><o:p></o:p>

ANGELINA
MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.)<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;
font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;"> 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><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">The Plaintiff in this action claimed that he won a lottery which is run
by the 1st Defendant. His case was that he staked some numbers with
the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants who are agents
of the 1st Defendant. He alleged that he won the numbers staked per
Asare Original Pay All winning numbers as announced at the time in question. It
is the alleged prize money of GH¢18,000.00 which he has sued for.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">The Defendants denied all the material allegations of fact made by the
Plaintiff. Their defence was that Private Lotteries, including Asare Original
pay All, had been abolished by Act 722 and the same had been confirmed by the
Supreme Court. Thus, the Defendants could not have been given any license by
the National Lottery Authority (NLA).They pleaded illegality.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">The main issue for determination by this court is whether or not the
Defendants have license to operate Private Lottery? And if so, whether the
Plaintiff is entitled to his claim.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">In all civil suits, a party who makes an averment which is denied by his
opponent assumes the burden of proof on that assertion as was held by Kpegah JA
(as he then was) in Zambrama v Segbedzi <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;">(1991) 2 GLR<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;">
221
as follows:<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;">“…
a person, 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.” &nbsp;See also Continental Plastic v IMC Industries-Technik
GMBH (2009) SCGLR 298 at 307.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;">Having
assumed such an onerous burden, it is the duty of that party to introduce
credible evidence so that on the totality of the evidence, the court will find
that party’s case to be more probable than not as required by sections 11(4)
and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 N.R.C.D. 323. These provisions read as
follows:<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;">“Section 11(4):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In
other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to
produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could
conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its
non-existence.”<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;">“Section 12(1):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Except
as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by a
preponderance of probabilities.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;">Section 12(2):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Preponderance
of the probabilities ‘means that degree of certainty of b</main>