KWAME TIAKA vs. JOHN ASARE & ANOR [2015]DLHC3549

Date	2015-11-02
Suit No.	SUIT NO.RPC/214/14
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC3549

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

VIVIAN M. GYAN FOR PLAINTIFF.

OSAM KWAME FOR DEFENDANT.

[2015]DLHC3549
																																						<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" >KWAME TIAKA<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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; vs.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;JOHN ASARE &amp; ANOR<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/214/14&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 2ND NOVEEMBER, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>VIVIAN M. GYAN FOR
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">

OSAM
KWAME FOR DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</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">

</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>This
is an action for the recovery of the sum of GH¢54, 560 being the unpaid balance
of goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. The 2nd
Defendant has denied being a party to the sales agreement resulting in this
debt. The 1st Defendant also alleged that the last supply of goods
made by the Plaintiff were mainly inferior and are still in stock to the
knowledge of the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>These
are the issues set down for trial:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the Plaintiff supplied goods
worth GH¢ 100,560.00 to the Defendants on credit?<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the parties agreed that
Defendant would pay up the cost of the goods on or before the 14th of
January, 2014?<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the goods were of inferior
quality?<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to
the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons?<o:p></o:p>The
facts giving rise to this case are well captured in the evidence -in-chief of
the Plaintiff given on 24/02/2015. According to the Plaintiff, he supplied the
Defendants with second hand ladies shoes to the tune of GH¢100,560.00 about
three years ago. He demanded a written schedule of re-payment because of delays
at the instance of the 1st Defendant in respect of earlier supplies.
Thus, the 1st Defendant caused an agreement to be prepared which the
Plaintiff subsequently signed. That agreement was admitted in evidence as
exhibit A. Continuing, the Plaintiff said the Defendants ought to have made
full payment by the end of the year 2014, but only GH¢ 46,000.00 has so far
been paid by the 1st Defendant. Consequently, the Plaintiff said he
made both oral and written demands for payment as per exhibit B, but the
Defendants have refused to pay the amount outstanding. Concluding, the
Plaintiff denied the Defendants assertions that the unsold goods are of
inferior quality and the demand for them is low. He urged the court to compel
the Defendants to pay the balance outstanding.<o:p></o:p>During
cross-examination by counsel for the Defendants, the Plaintiff denied that
exhibit A covers all supplied made by the Plaintiff when that was suggested to
him. Instead, he maintained that exhibit A covers only the 4th container of
goods supplied to the Defendants. In the words of the Plaintiff "exhibit A
was made before the 1st Defendant came for the goods" and that he insisted
that the 1st Defendant's wife be made a party to the agreement since they sell
the goods together and the previous payment had delayed.&nbsp; The Plaint</main>