THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT HELD AT BEGORO ON

WEDNESDAY THE 7TH OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HER WORSHIP

SUIT NO: A11/16/22

VINCENT OKYERE………………………………………. PLAINTIFF

JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff, Vincent Okyere sued the Defendant, Kwasi Ofosu & Kofi Amankwaa alias Anadwo ye de
claiming the following reliefs:

1. An order of the Honourable Court prevailing upon the defendants to purchase the under listed
home used parts and fix same in the plaintiff’s Kia Avera Taxi Cab with Registration No. GW
945-09 and spray the said car and further order of the Court prevailing upon Defendants to renew
all document(s) in respect of the said car at the insurance office (s) and DVLA and hand over the
same to the plaintiff in its perfect working condition forthwith.
1. Four (4) tires 5. Two (2) board sticker
2. Four (4) doors 6. Back tail light
3. Bonnet 7. Boot Avella
4 Front fender 8. Front wind screen
9. Sun shad
In the Plaintiff’s statement of claim, he stated among other things that he owns a taxi cab GW 945-09
and that he brought the taxi to Begoro because he was sick and packed it in his house. He subsequently
asked 1st Defendant to assist him with a trustworthy driver to drive the said taxi to enable the Plaintiff
to pay for his medication. He stated further that later the Plaintiff brought the 1st Defendant after which
they negotiated a daily sales of GH¢50.00 and that even though the 2nd Defendant was to drive the car
but the care and responsibility of the taxi was in the hands of the 1st Defendant. He stated that after the
Defendants took the taxi away, he did not hear from them or see them until he was told the taxi cab was
packed at Kumfari near Miaso but he subsequently asked for the taxi to be towed to him at Begoro but

1
the vehicle was packed in the 1st Defendant’s house without the plaintiff’s consent until he was later
informed by the 1st Defendant.
In the statement of defense, the Defendants denied paragraphs 1,2,4,5,7, and 8. Defendants stated that
Plaintiff asked him to look for a driver to drive his packed taxi and so he contacted 2nd Defendant for
him and agreed for him to make a daily sale of GH¢50.00. He states further that the taxi needed some
repairs such as boot and replacement of bushings of the absorbers.
The defendants aver that on same day when plaintiff tried to start the engine for 2 nd defendant same did
not start initially but upon plaintiff persistent attempt to fix something, same eventually started.
Again it was also agreed that there were some repair works to be made on the taxi cab such as the boot
and replacement of bushings on the absorbers.

The defendants aver that 2nd defendant used the taxi cab on the first day and gave to 1st defendant a sale
of GHȼ 40.00 which same was given to the plaintiff after repairing the above mentioned parts of the
taxi and promised to add the second day’s sales to the third day’s sale.
The 1st defendant mentioned that 2nd defendant on the third day called to inform him that the taxi had
developed a fault that the fuel pump was not functioning which same was made known to the plaintiff
who gave defendants GHȼ 30.00 to add to the second day’s sales to buy a new fuel pump.

The defendants aver that due to the above 2nd defendant could not use the taxi for the intended purpose
and plaintiff was duly informed as the taxi cab was left at its parking lot beside the District Assembly.

That after the taxi was parked, plaintiff sent his nephew for the key and the battery which were kept in
1st defendant’s house to start the car but same did not start and attributed it to lack of fuel.

The 1st defendant state that plaintiff after two weeks of parking the taxi came to complain that he had it
in his spirit that 2nd defendant used the taxi and had failed to account for his daily sales which 1st
defendant advised plaintiff to ignore that feelings and even reported same to 1st defendant’s mother.

The 1st defendant and on behalf the 2nd defendant states that the plaintiff is very much aware that the
taxi cab was not in good condition before releasing same to 2nd defendant for use because plaintiff had
the intension of selling same which 1st defendant advised plaintiff to fully repair same for a good price.
The parties appeared before the Court on the 02/03/22 and when the claim was read and explained to the
Defendant he pleaded Not Liable. The case was therefore set down for a full trial for the Plaintiff to
prove his claim on the balance of probabilities required by law.

2
After a careful study of pleadings filed the following issues were identified for determination.
Whether or not the Plaintiff has succeeded in proving his case against the Defendants beyond the
balance of probabilities required by law.
Whether or not the Defendants are responsible for damaging the parts being claimed by the
Plaintiff.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED AND APPLICATION OF LAW

Section 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD 323 provides that proof must be by a preponderance of
probabilities. That section defines “preponderance of probabilities” as denoting “a certain degree of
belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact
is more probable than its non-existence.”
This position was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Adwubeng v Domfeh [1997-98] 1
GLR 282 that the standard of proof in all civil actions, without exception, was proof by a preponderance
of probabilities.
Plaintiff in proving his case called one witness and tendered no exhibits in evidence. Plaintiff told the
Court in his evidence as appeared in his witness statement filed to the Court that he was a taxi driver
driving his own taxi cab with registration No. CW9 945 in Accra but because of ill-health came to
Begoro to seek medical care. He claims the 1st Defendant is his cousin and that about two years ago, he
suffered from both legs and became bedridden. As a result, his mother sent him to Begoro for
medication. He claims when he was coming to Begoro, he brought his Taxi Cab which is the subject
matter in issue along. According to him one day he and his mother (PW1) were in the house opposite the
Begoro police station when 1st defendant came to visit him. And that he subsequently asked him whether
he will get a credible driver to drive his packed taxi to enable him to get something to support his
medication where the Defendant assured him to get a driver for him. He states that three days later, he
was in the house with his mother who is also PW1 when defendants approached them to introduce the
2nd defendant to them to drive his taxi cab.
As a result, defendants went and inspected the car in issue and they expressed their interest in same,
where they negotiated the transaction in the presence of his mother. According to him they agreed that
the Defendants will make a daily sales of GHȼ 50.00 and that defendants told them the taxi will operate
in Begoro Township (town running). He claims they also agreed that the 1st defendant will take
responsibility and care of the said taxi which same was accepted by Defendants. Plaintiff avers that his
mother gave defendants GHȼ 50.00 to top the petrol in the tank. Defendants subsequently took the car

3
away but after three (3) days, of using the taxi made sales of GHȼ 40.00 instead of GH¢100.00 of
which he later gave the 1st defendant GHȼ 10.00 out of same as a token. He submitted that for more than
three (3) weeks, he did not hear from the defendants until they later came and informed him that the fuel
pump was damaged. As a result, he gave them GHȼ 30.00 and requested them to add GHȼ 20.00 to
make GHȼ 50.00 to enable them buy a new pump for the car. But did not hear from the defendants until
a week later, when they came and informed him they have parked the car at Kumfare, a village near
Miaso. So he requested defendants to go and tow the car to him in Begoro, which they obliged but about
a week later, 1st defendant went to informed him that they towed the car but same had been packed in 1 st
defendant’s house around the Zoom lion car parked behind the Fanteakwa North District Assembly. He
claims consequently, he and his mother went there to have a look at it. On their arrival he ignited the car
but same could not ignite, as a result he examined the parts critically where he found that the parts listed
on his Writ of Summons and the wires as well as the battery were damaged.
He later sent a message through one Ofosu alias Abele to go and inform 1st defendant to buy the
damaged parts, fix same and spray the car and renew all the documents in respect of the car at the
appropriate quarters and hand over same to him. He avers in conclusion of his evidence that Ofosu came
and informed them that, when he delivered the message, the 1st defendant categorically stated that if
plaintiff sue them at the Honourable Court they will be in a position to put the car in issue, on the road.
And that he found all avenues for defendants to make his car roadworthy but same proved fiasco. He is
of the opinion and verily belief that, defendants will not make his car roadworthy unless this Honorable
Court compel them. That since the Honourable Court is the forum convenient for the determination of
such matters, he filed this action seeking the reliefs endorsed on his Writ of Summons.

PW1 was Elizabeth Obese, she told the Court she is a trader and a resident of Begoro

She stated in her witness statement to the Court that she knows the plaintiff; he is her biological son and
also knows the 1st defendant, as the grandson of her late husband Opanin Buabeng (Plaintiff’s father).
According to her about two (2) years ago, the plaintiff had problem with both legs which made him
bedridden. Consequently, she brought him to Begoro to seek for medication where the Plaintiff took his
Taxi Cab which is the subject matter of the present suit along and packed same in their residence near
the Begoro Police Station. She claims one day the 1st defendant paid a visit to the plaintiff where he saw
the car packed in their house.
Later, plaintiff asked him whether he could get a credible driver to drive the car for him and he replied
yes. Some days later. Defendant approached the plaintiff, where 1st defendant introduced the 2nd
defendant as the driver to drive the car in issue.

4
According to her Defendants told plaintiff that they will ply Begoro Township (town running), as a
result they agreed that, the daily sales was w GHȼ 50.00, which same was agreed by defendants. And
that Plaintiff told defendants that the 1st defendant will take responsibility of the taxi, which same was
agreed by defendants. She claims she subsequently, gave defendants GHȼ 50.00 to fuel the car because
there was not enough fuel in the tank where they took the car away but for some days they only made
sales of GHȼ 40.00 instead of GHȼ 100.00. She submitted that she did not hear anything concerning the
car in issue until about three (3) weeks later, defendants came and informed the plaintiff that the car in
issue was not road worthy and so it had been parked at Kumfere because as the Defendants claim, the
fuel pump is damaged. As a result, plaintiff gave them GHȼ 30.00 and requested them to add GHȼ 20.00
to make GHȼ 50.00 to enable them buy a new fuel pump for the car. But did not hear anything again
until the 1st defendant later informed them that they have towed the car to Begoro. She submitted further
that, plaintiff accompanied her to inspect the car. On our arrival she saw that the car had been packed
near 1st defendant’s house around the zoom lion car pack behind the Fanteakwa North District Assembly
and clothes and dresses have been dried on it. Pw1 claim further that she saw that the wires in the car,
the glasses, the lights and doors etc. of the said car have been damaged and so later plaintiff told one
Ofosu a.k.a Abele to go and inform the 1st defendant to make his car roadworthy and hand over same to
him (plaintiff). She continued in conclusion that Abele later informed them that when he delivered the
message, 1st defendant told him categorically that if plaintiff sue them at this Honourable Court, they
will repair the damaged car for the plaintiff. Hence this action.

First Defendant testified for himself and on behalf of the 2nd Defendant. In his evidence to the Court as
found in his witness statement the 1st Defendant told the Court he lives in Begoro and a carpenter by
profession. According to him the plaintiff is considered as an uncle and had been friends who lived
together before plaintiff left for Accra while the 2nd defendant is a native of Begoro and a driver. He
claims he once visited the Plaintiff upon his return from Accra and was bedridden in his house where
plaintiff showed to him a taxi cab belonging to him parked in his house and told him to look for a driver
to drive his taxi cab for commercial purpose for plaintiff to use the proceeds to take care of his illness.
He contends that for two weeks he could not get a driver as discussed with plaintiff but upon plaintiff’s
pressure mounted, compelled him to contact one Mr. Kwaku Attah (1st defendant’s friend) who
introduced 2nd defendant to him as a driver. Subsequently, he contacted 2nd defendant for the offer which
he accepted hence they met plaintiff where they discussed and he agreed that 2nd defendant makes a
daily sales of GHȼ 50.00. He claims for it to be on record that the Plaintiff made countless effort to start
the taxi before handing same over to the 2nd Defendant and was further agreed that there were some

5
repair works to be made on the taxi cab such as the boot and replacement of bushings on the absorbers.
1st Defendant contend further that the 2nd defendant used the taxi cab on the first day and gave him a sale
of GHȼ 40.00 with the reason being that the above mentioned repairs were made which same was given
to the plaintiff and promised to add the second day’s sales to the third day’s sale. That even out of the
GHȼ40.00 plaintiff gave him GHȼ10.00 as a token. He added moreover that 2nd defendant on the third
day called to inform him that the fuel pump had developed a fault hence not functioning which same
was made known to the plaintiff who gave defendants GHȼ 30.00 to add to the second day’s sale to
repair same (@ GHȼ 70.00) and bring the taxi cab to plaintiff. Although the fuel pump was repaired,
the engine did not start as a result, 2nd defendant could not use the taxi for the intended purpose and
plaintiff was duly informed which plaintiff advised that the taxi be parked at its parking lot beside the
District Assembly where it used to be parked and the battery removed and be placed on a pallet to avoid
it being damaged. And that a week after the taxi was parked, plaintiff sent his nephew for the key and
the battery which were kept in his house to start the car but same did not start and he attributed it to lack
of fuel. He avers two weeks after parking the taxi, plaintiff came to him and complained that he had it in
his spirit that 2nd defendant used the taxi and had failed to account for his daily sales which he advised
plaintiff to ignore that feelings and even reported same to his mother. He submitted it was obvious that
the plaintiff is very much aware that the taxi cab was not in good condition before releasing same to 2 nd
defendant for use because plaintiff said on the 1st day when the engine was not starting that the engine
had been idle for some time now and suffered whiles driving same to Begoro. Besides Plaintiff’s
intension of selling same due to the numerous faults and unworthiness of the taxi to the road which he
advised plaintiff to fully repair same for a good price. He claims plaintiff is finding ways and means to
make defendants repair the disputed taxi for his personal use because, since the taxi cab never had
accident to warrant the damage of the parts mentioned being claimed by the plaintiff. He concluded by
contending that the defendants are not the owners of the said taxi cab and have no right to renew the
documentations of same as claimed and therefore pray the Honourable Court to consider plaintiff’s
claim as baseless and without merit since the taxi was used by the 2nd defendant for only three days and
same broke down.

I will now proceed to deal with the issues identified for determination
Whether or not the Plaintiff has succeeded in proving his case against the Defendants beyond the
balance of probabilities required by law

6
On the writ filed by the Plaintiff as shown supra, he stated he handed his taxi cap with registration
number GW945-09 to the 2nd Defendant to drive and make daily sales of GH¢50.00 with the
responsibility of the said taxi in the hands of 1st Defendant because he introduced the 2nd Defendant to
the Plaintiff as a driver at Plaintiff’s request. However, after the first day sales of GH¢40.00 he reported
on the third day that the fuel pump was defective, after which he gave them GH¢30.00 to add GH¢20.00
of the second day’s sales to buy a new fuel pump. He claims he did not hear from the Defendants until
after three weeks when he was told the taxi was not road worthy and had been parked at Kumfari, near
Miaso. He claims he asked for the said taxi to be towed to him at Begoro, but it was towed to the 1 st
Defendant’s house around the Zoom lion car Park behind the Fanteakwa District Assembly. And when
he went to critically examined it he realized the wires, battery as well as the above mentioned parts as
appeared on the writ were damaged and requested the Defendants to buy new parts and fixed same in the
taxi and also spray it for him. However, he claims all efforts made for the Defendants to do that have
failed besides renewing the insurance and road worthy certificate covering the taxi.

Defendants in their statement of defense stated as shown supra, that the taxi cap they took from the
Plaintiff with a daily sale of 50.00 broke down the third day the vehicle was given to the 2nd Defendant
and the Plaintiff was duly informed about it where he gave Gh¢30.00 and asked the 2nd Defendant to add
GH¢20.00 of the second day’s sales to it and fix the fuel pump and bring same to the Plaintiff. He
contended that the fuel pump was fixed but the taxi could not start. Because of this problem the taxi was
parked at its parking lot beside the District Assembly and the Plaintiff was notified. After which Plaintiff
sent his nephew to collect the key and the battery which were kept in the 1 st Defendant’s house to start
the car but same could not start because there was not fuel in it. 1st Defendant avers that the Plaintiff was
very much aware that the taxi was not in good condition and was looking for ways for Defendants to fix
it for him because the taxi was not involved in accident to warrant the damage of the parts being claimed
by the Plaintiff besides the fact that the taxi was not theirs for them to renew the insurance and the Road
Worthy certificates covering the disputed taxi. He claims the Plaintiff’s claim is baseless and without
merit since the car was used by the 2nd Defendant for only three days.
On the evidence above the Plaintiff did not show to the Court the state of the Taxi before and after
giving it to the Defendants and even the current state of the taxi is not known for the Court to make a
determination on its assessment. In his own assessment, he claims the parts on his writ of summons were
damaged and the Defendants were liable. In the defense by the Defendants the 1st Defendant drove the
taxi for only three days before it broke down.

7
2nd Defendant contend further that plaintiff is finding ways and means to make defendants repair the
disputed taxi for his personal use because, plaintiff’s taxi cab never had accident to warrant the damage
of the parts mentioned and being claimed by the plaintiff.
Defendants therefore pray the Honourable Court to consider plaintiff’s claim as baseless and without
merit since the taxi was used by the 2nd defendant for only three days and same broke down.
PW1 as shown supra corroborated the Plaintiff’s side of the issue about the agreement concerning the
usage of the taxi which the Defendants do not dispute. The issue for determination by this Court is
whether or not the Defendants are liable for damaging the parts the Plaintiff is seeking them to replace
as listed on the writ of summons by Plaintiff. For the Court to order the Defendants to do as he is
seeking, the evidential burden is on the Plaintiff to lead sufficient evidence to prove to the Court that the
Defendants are indeed liable for damaging the taxi for which the Court can find them liable.
Unfortunately, as the case stands, in the evidence on record by the Plaintiff, there was no evidence of the
taxi before giving it to the Defendants and neither did he also show in his evidence the state of the taxi
currently, from which the Court can make an inference that the Defendants are liable as to the claim he
seeks. Neither was is shown to the Court, how long the taxi was packed at its current location. In his
evidence he did not show that the taxi was involved in an accident within the three weeks the taxi was in
possession of the Defendants. Defendants also contended that the taxi was not involved in an accident
within the three weeks the taxi was in their possession. The Plaintiff’s evidence was silent on the
agreement he made with the Defendants to renew the road worthy certificate and the insurance which
are personal obligations on the owners or users of vehicles in Ghana. Whether or not the documents for
the renewal were with the Defendants and an agreement was reached with them to renew same, from
which they failed do so, the Plaintiff’s evidence did not mention. It baffles the Court how the taxi parts
such as appeared on the writ such as the four tires, four doors, bonnet, front fender, sun shade, back tail
light, boot Avella and front wind screen could be damaged within three weeks of usage for which the
Defendants are liable when there is no shred of evidence on record to show the veracity and credibility
of the said assertion that the said parts were damaged within the three weeks period the said taxi was in
the possession of the Defendants, when the said taxi had not been involved in an accident. How the
Defendants became responsible for renewing the insurance and the road worthy certificates covering the
taxi was not also mentioned. Since by law they are mandatory requirements for owners and users of
vehicles to do with certain information on the vehicle known to the owner before same could be
renewed annually. Without cogent evidence on these issues, since the burden of persuasion is on the
Plaintiff, the Court would have no basis to base its determination to find the Defendants liable and enter
judgment in favour of Plaintiff. Upon a careful consideration of the Plaintiff’s case, I hold humbly that

8
the Plaintiff woefully failed to prove his case beyond the preponderance of the probabilities required by
law for the civil burden of proof to be discharged.

Whether or not the Defendants are responsible for damaging the parts being claimed by the
Plaintiff
As held supra, since the persuasive burden is on the Plaintiff to lead sufficient evidence to prove what he
seeks, coupled with facts on record that the Plaintiff woefully failed to discharge that persuasive burden
required for judgment to be in his favour, what the Defendants said in defense of the claim that the
Plaintiff is only devising a way for them to fix his already damaged taxi for him could be true. On the
evidence , it was found as a fact that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants
for the 2nd Defendant to drive the Plaintiff’s taxi GW 945-09 for commercial purpose and to make a
daily sales of GH¢50 .00 . It was also found as a fact that the taxi was in the Possession of the
Defendants for three weeks. For the 1st Defendant to drive and 2nd Defendant to be responsible for the
upkeep of the taxi since he introduced the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff at his request. Moreover, it was
found as a fact that the Plaintiff was made aware by the 1st Defendant when the disputed taxi was packed
at its current location. On the totality of the evidence adduced before me, I hold that the Plaintiff has
failed in prove his case on the balance probabilities required by law. Claim is accordingly dismissed.
Costs of GH¢500. 00 for the Defendants against the Plaintiff.

DECISION:
Plaintiff has failed to prove his case on the balance of probabilities required by law. Claim is
accordingly dismissed. Costs of GH¢500. 00 for the Defendants against the Plaintiff.

……………………………………
FLORENCE A. BAAH
(DISTRICT MAGISTRATE)