KWAME TIAKA vs. ISAAC OSEI [2018]DLHC3734

Date	2018-01-21
Suit No.	KWAME TIAKA vs. ISAAC OSEI
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3734

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

VIVIAN MFODWAA GYAN FOR PLAINTIFF

KWAME OWUSU SEKYERE FOR DEFENDANT

[2018]DLHC3734
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1"></a><a name="OLE_LINK11"></a><a name="OLE_LINK12">KWAME TIAKA<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>ISAAC OSEI<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.P/RPC/03/17&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 21ST JANUARY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>VIVIAN
MFODWAA 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">

KWAME OWUSU SEKYERE FOR
DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH
(MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>This
court has been called upon to determine the rights and obligations of the
parties herein under a sale of goods contract which they orally entered into,
even though the endorsement on the writ of summons appears to be a normal
liquidated demand. The amount being claimed is GHC 50,070.00 plus interest,
from 01/01/2014, till date of final payment. <o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff’s case is that for approximately six years prior to January, 2013, he
supplied the Defendant with used ladies shoes and sandals. In the course of the
dealings, the Plaintiff alleged that he supplied the defendant with ladies
shoes and sandals worth GHC 54,870.00 on or before January, 2013, to be paid on
or before December 2013. By the close of December 2013, the Plaintiff contended
that the Defendant had not made any payment at all, and after repeated demands,
he paid GHC 1,000.00. He further alleged that two post-dated cheques issued by
the Defendant as part payment could not be cashed, and following a report to
the police, the Defendant made three payments of GHC 2,500.00; GHC 500.00 and
GHC 800.00, leaving a balance of GHC 50,070.00. It has also been alleged that
the Defendant has removed all the merchandise from his shop known by the
Plaintiff at Kejetia K.O.<o:p></o:p>The
Defendant did not deny his course of dealings with the Plaintiff commencing
06/05/2013, but alleged that he fully paid for all the used ladies shoes and
sandals delivered to him before December, 2013, including the goods worth GHC
33,750.00 supplied to him in July, 2013. It is his case that on 13/12/2013 and
January, 2014 respectively, he took delivery of 2nd hand ladies
shoes from the Plaintiff but most of them were damaged and he informed the
Plaintiff that he could not sell them because they were damaged on
arrival.&nbsp; The Defendant further averred
that he informed the Plaintiff about the condition of the shoes but the
Plaintiff urged him to sell the goods ones and he would ‘do something’ about the rest. He also alleged that to the
knowledge of the Plaintiff, he was unable to sell about 500 pairs of damaged
shoes, and, in October, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed that he should pay the sum
of GHC 16,000.00 as his total indebtedness. Further, the Defendant contended
that the Plaintiff agreed to supply him with more shoes so that the proceeds
could be used to offset his losses. In connection with the cheques which the Plaintiff
could not cash, the Defendant stated that due to insufficient funds, he stopped
his bankers from effecting payment and notified the Plaintiff accordingly. So,
the Plaintiff was not supposed to present the cheques at all for encashment. <o:p></o:p>ISSUES FOR TRIAL<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The issues which were tried, and must be
determined are:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the Defendant is indebted to
the Plaintiff in the amount of GHC 50,070.00?<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to
his claims?<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the Defendant was supplied with
damaged shoes which was brought to the attention of the Plaintiff?<o:p></o:p><</main>