MAXWELL OBENG vs. KWADWO ODURO KWARTENG [2018]DLHC4124

Date	2018-04-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC/38/14
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC4124

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

LESLIE SENYO AMEDIOR FOR AKWASI ARHIN FOR PLAINTIFF

ISAAC OKYERE KUMAH FOR DEFENDANT.

[2018]DLHC4124
																																						<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">MAXWELL
OBENG<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>KWADWO ODURO KWARTENG<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/38/14&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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 APRIL, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>LESLIE
SENYO AMEDIOR FOR AKWASI ARHIN FOR PLAINTIFF&nbsp;
<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">

ISAAC OKYERE KUMAH 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>The
parties to this suit entered into an agreement whereby the Defendant was to
supply lumber to the Defendant who had decided to venture into the lumber
business. It is the case of the Plaintiff that as of August, 2015, he had made
various payments totaling GHC 59,865.00 to the Defendant, but the Defendant failed
to supply the lumber. When the Plaintiff demanded a refund of his money, the Defendant
admitted owing the sum of GHC 59,865.00, pleaded for six months to pay the
money and executed a promissory note to that effect. Consequently, the Plaintiff
by his writ of summons and statement of claim issued from the registry of this
court sought to recover the sum of GHC 59,865.00 and interest thereon from the Defendant.<o:p></o:p>The
Defendant caused an appearance to be entered on his behalf and proceeded to
file a defence. However, the Defendant blatantly refused to comply with all the
orders for the filing of witness statements even after he had been granted an
extension of time. Thus, in accordance with rule 7A 3(b) of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2014, C.I. 87, the statement of defence
filed by the Defendant was struck out on 13/03/2018. A date was subsequently
set for the Plaintiff to prove his claim. <o:p></o:p>The
issues for determination 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 59,865.00?<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the promissory note executed
by the Defendant was an admission of his total indebtedness to the Plaintiff?<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to
his claim?<o:p></o:p>At
the trial, the Plaintiff repeated the averments contained in his statement of
claim on oath and tendered the promissory note executed by the Defendant as
exhibit ‘A’. Further, the Plaintiff told the court that after the pre-trial
conference, the Defendant made a part payment of GHC 20,000.00. <o:p></o:p>In
the course of cross-examination of the Plaintiff by counsel for the Defendant,
it came out that the Defendant made another payment of GHC 15,000.00 to the Plaintiff
on 09/04/2017 but the Plaintiff was silent on this payment in his
evidence-in-chief.&nbsp; Again, counsel for
the Defendant challenged the outstanding balance on the basis that the Plaintiff
took delivery of “certain wood or timber” supplied by SKOD Timber Products
Limited at Asikuma Sawmill. In response to this, the Plaintiff said that was a
separate agreement unrelated to the present case. The Plaintiff insisted the Defendant’s
indebtedness is the amount stated in the promissory note less the total
payments of GHC 35,000.00. <o:p></o:p>In
his closing submissions before this court, counsel for the Plaintiff referred
the court to the Black’s Law Dictionary
(2009) 9th ed.&nbsp; where
a&nbsp; promissory note is defined as:<o:p></o:p>