DICKSON AGBEMAFLE vs. CHARLES NORNOO [2021]DLCA16194

Date	2021-12-04
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO: H1/143/14
Citation No.	[2021]DLCA16194

MARFUL-SAU J.A (PRESIDING)

GYAESAYOR J.A

C. SOWAH J.A.

MR. STEPHEN AHOR FOR APPELLANT

MR. EGBERT FAIBILLE FOR RESPONDENT

[2021]DLCA16194
																																						<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" >DICKSON AGBEMAFLE <o:p></o:p>(PLAINITFF
/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CHARLES NORNOO&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT
/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

CIVIL
APPEAL SUIT NO: H1/143/14&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 4TH DECEMBER, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
STEPHEN AHOR FOR APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

MR. EGBERT FAIBILLE FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>MARFUL-SAU
J.A (PRESIDING), GYAESAYOR J.A, C. SOWAH J.A&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0in;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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>GYAESAYOR, JA<o:p></o:p>This
appeal emanating from the High Court, Denu is against the judgment of that
court dated 21st November, 2013 and found at pages 237 to 245 of the
record of appeal. For the sake of clarity the plaintiff/appellant shall be
called the plaintiff while the defendant/respondent shall be called the
defendant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
facts of the case are quite simple. The parties have known themselves for sometime
prior to the events leading to this appeal.&nbsp;
The plaintiff was putting up a hotel in Agbozume in the Volta Region and
it became necessary for him to acquire certain items like furniture, TV sets, Kitchen
equipments etc in order to run the hotel. The plaintiff proposed to the
defendant who is a&nbsp; businessman and
travels to China regularly to help him to acquire these items but the defendant
refused on the grounds that he was not in that line of business. Subsequently,
the plaintiff accompanied the defendant to China sometime in 2007 in the
company of one Mrs. Quarshigah to buy these items.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;While
in China, the defendant in view of the language barrier engaged the services of
one interpreter Ketty Xu who took plaintiff to the market to do his own
purchaser. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On
their return to Ghana, the plaintiff transferred monies to the ADB account of the
defendant for onward delivery to China for the payment of the goods and
freight.&nbsp; The defendant claimed to have transferred
the monies as requested by the plaintiff. When the goods arrived, plaintiff complained
of short delivery, and the loss of certain components of some of the delivered
items. This the plaintiff attributed to the non-payment of the monies to the appropriate
persons in China by the defendant.&nbsp; The defendant
denied this and said he had no contractual obligation to see to the delivery of
the items and that he was only to facilitate the transfer of the money which he
did. Indeed he also filed a counterclaim. In the light of the disagreement the
plaintiff took action in the High Court seeking the reliefs endorsed:<o:p></o:p>a.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Recovery of $13,530 or its cedi equivalent
being money paid by the plaintiff or Bed sheets, pillow cases and overall
dresses which have not been delivered despite persistent demands.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;b.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Recovery of $11,440 or its cedi equivalent
being money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for kitchen equipment which the
defendant which have not been delivered despite persistent demands.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;c.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Recovery of $735.40 or its cedi equivalent
being money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for the shipping of the
goods which have not been delivered despite persistent demands.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<!--[if </main>