Judgment - Setting aside -
Counterclaim - Evidence -
Whether or not judgment was
against the weight of evidence.-
Whether or not judgmentof the
first appellate court was
justified or was supported by
the evidence on record -
HEADNOTES
The respondent sued the
appellant in the trial High
Court claiming for the recovery
of an amount of GHc36,000.00 as
appellant’s indebtedness to it.
The appellant denied the claim
and counterclaimed against the
respondent for the sum of
GHc80,000.00, which he later
amended to GHc223,620.24. The
trial High Court dismissed
respondent’s claim and granted
appellant’s counterclaim. The
respondent appealed to the Court
of Appeal against the whole
decision of the trial High
Court. The Court of Appeal
granted the appeal in part. It
affirmed the trial court’s
judgment dismissing respondent’s
claim but set aside that part of
the judgment that granted
appellant’s counterclaim. The
respondent who had lost twice,
decided not to pursue the matter
on a further appeal. The
appellant, however, was not
satisfied when the Court of
Appeal set aside the judgment of
the trial High Court in his
favour on his counterclaim
HELD :-
We agree with the Court of
Appeal that the appellant did
not lead sufficient evidence
credible enough to satisfy the
reliefs he claimed in his
counterclaim so the learned
trial judge erred when in the
circumstances, he failed to
apply the same yardstick he used
in dismissing respondent’s
claim, to dismiss appellant’s
counterclaim since he also
carried the same or equal burden
as the respondent. From the
record however, we find that
like the respondent, the
appellant was not able, on the
balance of the probabilities, to
establish his counterclaim. We
accordingly uphold the Court of
Appeal’s dismissal of
appellant’s counterclaim and
upon that, we dismiss the
appeal.
STATUTES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
Evidence Act, NRCD 323
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
KOGLEX (NO.2) v FIELD (NO.2)
[2000] SCGLR 175;
TUAKWA v BOSOM [2001-2002] SCGLR
61;
DJIN v MUSAH BAAKO [2007-2008]
SCGLR 728
OPPONG KOFI & Ors v ATTIBRUKUSU
III [2011] 1 SCGLR 176.
MAJOLAGBE V LARBI [1959] 1 GLR
190
SASU v WHITE CROSS INSURANCE CO.
LTD [1960] GLR 4
TETTEH & Another v HAYFORD
(Substituted by LARBI & DECKER)
[2012] 1 SCGLR 417
DAM v J. K. ADDO & Brothers
[1962] 2 GLR 200
BOOKS REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
DELIVERING THE LEADING JUDGMENT
APPAU, JSC:-
COUNSEL
FOR THE
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.
FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.
APPAU, JSC:-
This is an appeal from the
decision of the Court of Appeal
dated 17th December,
2015. The appellant (i.e.
defendant/respondent/appellant),
was the
defendant-counterclaimant in the
trial High court. He succeeded
in his counterclaim in the trial
court but lost on appeal at the
Court of Appeal when the
respondent herein (i.e.
plaintiff/ appellant/
respondent) appealed against the
decision of the trial High
court. For ease of reference,
the designation of the parties
herein, i.e. ‘appellant’
for
defendant/respondent/appellant
and ‘respondent’ for
plaintiff/appellant/respondent,
would be maintained.
Background to the appeal
The respondent sued the
appellant in the trial High
Court claiming for the recovery
of an amount of GHc36,000.00 as
appellant’s indebtedness to it.
The appellant denied the claim
and counterclaimed against the
respondent for the sum of
GHc80,000.00, which he later
amended to GHc223,620.24. The
trial High Court dismissed
respondent’s claim and granted
appellant’s counterclaim. The
respondent appealed to the Court
of Appeal against the whole
decision of the trial High
Court. The Court of Appeal
granted the appeal in part. It
affirmed the trial court’s
judgment dismissing respondent’s
claim but set aside that part of
the judgment that granted
appellant’s counterclaim. The
respondent who had lost twice,
decided not to pursue the matter
on a further appeal. The
appellant, however, was not
satisfied when the Court of
Appeal set aside the judgment of
the trial High Court in his
favour on his counterclaim. He
therefore decided to climb the
appeal ladder to its apogee by
appealing against that decision
to this Court.
Appeal to the Supreme Court
The only ground of appeal in the
notice of appeal which the
appellant filed on 15/02/2016
was the omnibus ground that the
judgment was against the weight
of evidence. In a situation like
this, our task as a second
appellate court, is as set out
in a plethora of cases including
but not limited to the
following: KOGLEX (NO.2) v
FIELD (NO.2) [2000] SCGLR 175;
TUAKWA v BOSOM [2001-2002] SCGLR
61; DJIN v MUSAH BAAKO
[2007-2008] SCGLR 728 and
OPPONG KOFI & Ors v ATTIBRUKUSU
III [2011] 1 SCGLR 176. The
duty the law imposes on
us as a second appellate court
is that, we must satisfy
ourselves that the judgment of
the first appellate court was
justified or was supported by
the evidence on record and if
not, to depart from it or hold
otherwise. However, before
embarking on this exercise, it
is for the appellant first of
all, to clearly, properly and
positively demonstrate to us in
his statement of case, the
lapses in the judgment being
appealed against which, when
corrected, would result in a
judgment in his favour. The
appellant did not do this. The
appellant, in his statement of
case, only recounted the
evidence he led and that of
C.W.1 and then concluded that
there is enough evidence on
record that would support the
judgment given in his favour by
the trial court.
The Court of Appeal in setting
aside the trial court’s findings
in support of the counterclaim,
held as follows: - “With
regard to the counterclaim,
however, the burden placed on
the respondent as
counterclaimant to prove his
claim seemed to have been
relaxed unduly. It is apparent
that the respondent’s accounts
which were not supported by
corroborative evidence such as
receipts were relied upon by the
trial judge. The learned trial
judge further indicated that the
report exhibit ‘C.E.1’ and the
evidence of C.W.1 based thereon
were corroborative of the
respondent’s assertions. This
was unfortunate as the report
exhibit ‘C.E.1’ had been
discredited by its author who
acknowledged that it was not
produced in accordance with the
proper auditing standards of
getting inputs from both
parties……..Moreover, the entry
of judgment against the
appellant upon a counterclaim in
the circumstance when the
respondent in his pleading had
denied the operation of the
contract between the parties,
but had indicated that what
transaction there was, had been
between him and the said Majid
in his personal capacity, is
difficult to understand or
justify in the absence of
documentary proof of his
particular dealings with the
appellant….As a counterclaimant,
the respondent assumed a
plaintiff’s burden of persuasion
and of producing evidence
regarding the indebtedness he
asserted in accordance with
S.10(1), 11(1) and 14 of the
Evidence Act, [NRCD 323]. On the
evidence, he failed to produce
evidence to substantiate what he
asserted to be due and owing to
him, for he simply repeated on
oath, what he had produced as
his accounts, and captured in
exhibit ‘C.E.1’ without
demonstrating through the use of
corroborative evidence
documentary or otherwise, how
the accounts came to read thus.
This was insufficient to result
in a finding in his favour; see
MAJOLAGBE V LARBI [1959] 1 GLR
190”.
We do not see where the Court of
Appeal erred in coming to this
conclusion. The appellant did
not say anything about this
finding by the Court of Appeal.
It was for the appellant to
demonstrate firmly where the
Court of Appeal went wrong in
disagreeing with the conclusions
of the trial judge but in our
view, the appellant was not
convincing in his statement of
case filed on 14/11/2016 that
the findings of the Court of
Appeal were not supported by the
evidence on record. We agree
with the Court of Appeal that
the auditor or accountant who
was appointed on the orders of
the trial court to reconcile the
accounts of the two parties did
not do a good job. It is
surprising that the trial court
did not find anything wrong with
his report exhibit ‘C.E.1’. His
assignment was to reconcile
accounts in respect of the
transactions between the
parties. The order of the trial
court made on 27th
July 2009 was; “IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that The
Registrar of this court is to
appoint a firm of Accountants to
go into the accounts with regard
to the transaction between the
parties and submit a report by
31st August, 2009.
Each party is to file his
documents needed for the account
on or before 19-8-2009”.
The contention that the
respondent did not co-operate
with C.W.1, the reason for which
the trial court appeared to have
dealt unfavourably with it,
could not be wholly true. This
is because, when the trial court
made its order requesting the
registrar to appoint an
accountant to go into the
accounts of the parties as
agreed to by the parties; it was
the respondent which filed its
documents at the registry of the
court first. The respondent
filed its documents on
18/08/2007, a day before the
timeline given by the court (See
p. 39 of RoA). The appellant
could not file his documents
within time so he filed a motion
for extension of time to do so
on 06/11/2009, several months
beyond the time the ‘C.W.1’ was
to submit his report. His
application was granted and he
finally filed his documents on
20/11/2009. The misunderstanding
that ensued between the
respondent and C.W.1 which
generated into the so-called
uncooperative attitude of the
respondent had to do with the
fees unilaterally charged by
C.W.1 for the work assigned to
him. What we know from practice
is that it is the courts, in
agreement with the parties, that
always determine fees to be paid
to court-appointed expert
witnesses like surveyors,
accountants, etc. Why the trial
court failed to do this, though
same was brought to its notice,
beats our imagination and we do
not deem it fair to blame the
respondent for the poor
performance of C.W.1.
During cross-examination by
counsel for the respondent,
C.W.1 admitted that the way he
went about his assignment was
contrary to normal accounting
practice. To a question whether
it was normal accounting
practice and principles for an
accountant to rely on
information supplied by one side
without due verification he
answered thus: “My Lord, it
is not”. The next question
was: “Q. And yet, after your
sixteen years of experience, you
did that, isn’t it? And the
answer was: “A. My Lord, we
did that with an explanation.
There is a time factor; in fact
we are dealing with the Fast
Track High Court. My Lord, we
had to present a report; we
extended our hand to the other
side, they weren’t coming and
there is a time limit that we
had to submit this report”.
{Page 181 of RoA}
The question is; what time limit
was C.W.1 talking about? He was
given up to 31st
August 2009 to submit his report
but by then the appellant had
not submitted his accounts to
him. He therefore could not
comply with the time and since
then; no specific time was given
to C.W.1, from the records, to
submit his report. In our view,
the above answer by C.W.1 cannot
be justified. This was no sound
reasoning for presenting a
one-sided report as a referee.
Justice must not be slaughtered
on the altar of time. As a court
appointed expert witness, if in
the course of his assignment
C.W1 encountered any
difficulties that were making
the proper accomplishment of his
assignment near impossible, he
was duty bound to report back to
the appointing authority, which
is the court, for further
direction which he never did. He
accepted everything the
appellant told him; even about
the documents the respondent had
already filed, without any
verification and thereafter
presented a one-sided report
which he himself admitted did
not conform to accounting
principles.
Events at the trial show that
C.W.1 who was supposed to be a
court witness by his
designation, was treated as if
he was appellant’s witness.
Since C.W.1 prepared his report
with the collaboration of the
appellant only, he was not
cross-examined by the appellant.
Rather, after the respondent had
finished with his
cross-examination of C.W.1, the
appellant was invited to
re-examine him as if C.W.1 was
his witness – Please refer
to pp.205 -206 of the RoA.
The accounting firm that C.W.1
represented expressly stated at
page 4 of its report (Exhibit
‘C.E.1’) that; “The scope
of our review was limited due to
the insufficiency of information
submitted”. This is an
admission that C.W.1 who
represented the accounting firm
came out with his report on the
basis of insufficient
information. If that is so, did
C.W.1 report any difficulties to
the trial court or make the
court aware of any such
difficulties before submitting
the one-sided report? From the
record, no report was ever
submitted to the court by C.W.1
about the difficulties allegedly
faced by him. It could not
therefore be asserted positively
that Exhibit ‘C.E.1’ was a
proper outcome of a
reconciliation of accounts
between the parties.
Since Exhibit ‘C.E.1’ had no
value, and even the trial court
was not bound by it on the
authority of sound judicial
reasoning as espoused in cases
like SASU v WHITE CROSS
INSURANCE CO. LTD [1960] GLR 4
and TETTEH & Another v
HAYFORD (Substituted by LARBI &
DECKER) [2012] 1 SCGLR 417;
the appellant could only succeed
in his counterclaim on the
strength of his evidence as he
called no witness. Though we do
not deny the fact that the
appellant’s success or failure
did not depend on whether he
called a witness or not, the
standard of proof required that
for the appellant to succeed on
his counterclaim, he must lead
satisfactory evidence, either by
himself or otherwise which, on
the balance of the
probabilities, makes his case
more probable than not.
Appellant did not satisfy this
test at the trial
It must be emphasized that
before C.W.1’s firm was
solicited to reconcile the
accounts between the two
parties, appellant’s allegation
was that Majid owed him the sum
of GHc80,000.00 which was an
over withdrawal of the value of
goods supplied and received by
him from Majid. It was C.W.1
but not the appellant who came
to the conclusion that the
respondent owed the appellant
the sum of GHc224,320.24
described as over-withdrawals of
moneys from appellant’s account.
This was the very amount the
respondent contended the
appellant originally owed it but
which he had paid leaving a
balance of GHc36,812.00 in his
claim which he lost. Though
C.W.1 admitted the name Awudu
Inusah appeared on some
occasions as the one who made
some of the withdrawals, there
was nothing in the bank
statement he examined which
identified specifically that the
said payments were made to the
respondent. He told the trial
court that he accepted what the
appellant told him that the
monies were paid to the
respondent. In fact, in his own
answer to a question by counsel
for the plaintiff to demonstrate
to the court how on the face of
the bank statement presented by
the appellant he could come to a
firm conclusion that all the
monies listed therein were
actually paid to the respondent,
this was what C.W.1 said:
“A…My Lord, that is what I am
going to do. I want to pick out
instances where we have debit on
the bank statement of Mr.
Francis Otoo, meaning amounts
had been paid out of his bank
account. On the 23rd
of October, 2007 GHc30,000.00
was taken out of his account.
My Lord, I have the transaction
described that cheque cashed…..Awudu
Inusah. We wanted clarification
and he said it was given to 2000
Ltd. There was another cheque of
24th October, 2007
GHc20,000.00 that also went to
2000 Ltd according to Mr Francis
Otoo. My Lord, I am afraid the
descriptions on the Bank
Statement do not specify that
the amount was going to 2000
Ltd. Names like Awudu Inusah,
Awudu Inusah, that is what have
been used but when we sought
clarification, he pointed out to
us that it was paid to 2000 Ltd
and we were able to trace
something to his ledger that he
deals with 2000 Limited, that
confirmed our stand that he paid
some amount of money to 2000
Ltd”.
{Emphasis added)
So, left to the appellant alone,
Majid owed him GHc80,000.00
which he alleged Majid cashed
from his accounts with signed
blank cheques he gave to Majid,
without authority. This was
appellant’s claim in his
original counterclaim filed on
28th February 2008,
which the respondent denied. It
was after C.W.1 had presented to
the appellant a copy of his one
sided report in which he
indicated that the actual
indebtedness of respondent to
appellant was GHc224,320.24 that
appellant applied to the trial
court to amend the amount stated
in his counterclaim to read
GHc223,620.24 to reflect the
one in exhibit ‘C.E.1’. His
amended statement of defence was
filed on 29th April,
2010, pursuant to leave granted
him by the trial court on 22nd
April 2010 and even the amount
stated therein, i.e.
GHc223,620.24 is different
from the one stated in Exhibit
‘C.E.1’ which is
GHc224,320.24. There is
therefore no doubt to the fact
that before C.W.1 submitted his
one-sided report (Exhibit
C.E.1), the appellant didn’t
know that either Majid or the
respondent, granted Majid acted
for the respondent, owed him so
much.
Again, in his testimony,
appellant contended that he paid
for the MTN cards supplied him
by the respondent by either cash
or through signed blank cheques.
This was what the appellant said
when led by his lawyer to
testify in-chief:
“Q. Tell the Court the kind of
business transaction you had
with the plaintiff company.
A. My Lord, I used to receive
MTN Products from the plaintiff
company.
Q. How were you paying for the
goods supplied?
A. I paid in physical cash and
sometimes in cheques.
Q. And in respect of the cheques,
how were you issuing cheques?
A. My Lord, I gave him signed
cheques, so whenever
transactions are done, he fills
it in and then go and cash them”
{Emphasis added}
The question which C.W.1 did not
resolve was; in whose name were
the blank cheques issued; the
respondent or its Managing
Director Majid El Jamal? Nothing
was said about that. If C.W.1
had done prudent job he could
have found out in whose name the
alleged blank cheques were
written granted appellant did
issue out signed blank cheques
and the quantity issued. The
tabulation made by C.W1 as the
indebtedness of respondent to
appellant on monthly basis was
as follows: i. October
2007 - GHc88,000.00 (six
withdrawals); ii.
November 2007 – Ghc120,000.00
(six withdrawals);
iii. December 2007 –
GHc6,405.00 (one withdrawal)
and iv. January, 2008
GHc9,212.74 (one withdrawal).
What C.W.1 did was to tabulate
all the cash withdrawals made by
cheques as shown on appellant’s
bank statement from 20th
October 2007 to 3rd
January 2008 and described them
as monies or cash withdrawn by
the respondent from appellant’s
account without authority, when
there was no evidence whatsoever
to support the allegation that
the said amounts were withdrawn
by whoever cashed them, without
authority.
As a matter of practice, which
this Court has taken judicial
notice of, the banks would not
normally allow huge withdrawals
to be made by strangers from an
account-holder’s accounts
without due notice to or
verification from the account
holder. These so-called
unauthorized withdrawals
included the withdrawal of 8th
November 2007, which the
respondent was able to establish
during cross-examination that it
was made by appellant himself
but not by either the respondent
or Majid. With regard to that
cash withdrawal, appellant said
when Majid tried to cash the
amount, he was unsuccessful so
he called him to assist him cash
the amount for one Awudu Inusah.
He therefore went to the bank in
the company of his friend by
name Kelvin Neequaye Quartey to
cash the money for Awudu Inusah
to be given to Majid El Jamal.
It was because of this testimony
that appellant called this
Kelvin Neequaye Quartey as a
witness in the first trial which
was later aborted.
So the question is, if the 8th
November withdrawal was done by
the appellant himself and handed
over to the agent of Majid, then
why did the appellant say all
those withdrawals, including the
8th November one,
were done by Majid without his
authorization? And why did he
have to cash the GHc20,000.00 to
be given to Majid when according
to him, as at that time the
respondent was indebted to him
to the tune of over GHc88,000
and no goods had been supplied
to him by the respondent? Was
the appellant saying that
between 20th October
2007 and 3rd January
2008, he never received any
statement at all from his
bankers indicating the
withdrawals made in connection
with his business transactions
for that period?
It also turned out that two of
the alleged withdrawals which
were allegedly made in December
2007 and January 2008 in the
sums of GHc7,105.50 and
GHc9,214.74 respectively,
were not payments made by the
appellant to the respondent but
rather they were payments, which
were bank drafts, made by
another agent of V. Mobile
called ‘A. Mobile’ to ‘V.
Mobile’. Appellant’s contention
was that he gave Majid two blank
cheques to secure the bank
drafts of GHc7,105.50 and
GHc9,214.74 in favour of
V. Mobile on 31st
December 2007 and 3rd
January 2008. All these sums
were tabulated in Exhibit
‘C.E.1’ as sums respondent
wrongly withdrew or cashed from
the account of appellant and
form part of the amount
appellant claimed in his
counterclaim. However, this
contention by the appellant is
at odds with his own testimony
that in November 2007, he wrote
to his bankers (Ecobank) not to
honour any cheque presented to
it by the respondent. So how
come that the bank ignored this
advice by the appellant and made
further payments to the
respondent in December and
January?
Again, it is an incontrovertible
fact that no stranger to a bank
account in Ghana could secure
banker’s draft on any account
assuming he is in possession of
signed blank cheques from the
account holder. In appellant’s
own words, Majid was to fill in
the blank cheques to cash the
value of goods supplied only
after a transaction had taken
place between them. This means
that granted Majid was supplied
with signed blank cheques, he
could only fill the blank
cheques for the purpose of
withdrawals only after a
transaction had taken place
between the respondent and the
appellant. So how did it happen
that Majid or the respondent
could withdraw monies totaling
GHc224,320.24
continuously from appellant’s
account without any protests
whatsoever from appellant, when
no transaction had taken place
between them during that period
spanning over two months? Though
the respondent denied all these
allegations during
cross-examination, the appellant
could not confirm them with
tangible evidence apart from his
reliance on the discredited
Exhibit ‘C.E.1’.
Again, the appellant did not
exhibit credibility throughout
the trial. Just as the
respondent could not establish
with certainty its case due to
the contradictory testimony of
P.W.1 on the alleged
indebtedness of the appellant to
the respondent, the appellant
too did not exhibit candour
throughout the proceedings which
places his counterclaim off
balance on the probability
scale. First of all, in his
pleaded case in defence as
amended, the appellant denied
ever dealing with the respondent
company in any way since 2007.
His case was that he had
personal dealings with one Majid
El Jamal, a director of the
respondent in 2004 prior to the
agreement he signed with the
respondent on 6th
October 2007 which never
materialized. His counterclaim
was therefore against Majid but
cynically included the
respondent. In his evidence,
however, he admitted having
dealings with the respondent in
2007, which was at variance with
his pleaded defence. The trial
court ignored this contradiction
on the part of the appellant
contrary to our decision in
DAM v J. K. ADDO & Brothers
[1962] 2 GLR 200 and
resolved the matter as if it was
between the appellant and the
respondent only without saying
anything about the counterclaim
against Majid personally, who
was not made a party. This was
where appellant’s credibility
was first shot in the leg
because his entire testimony was
at variance with his pleadings.
Conclusion
We agree with the Court of
Appeal that the appellant did
not lead sufficient evidence
credible enough to satisfy the
reliefs he claimed in his
counterclaim so the learned
trial judge erred when in the
circumstances, he failed to
apply the same yardstick he used
in dismissing respondent’s
claim, to dismiss appellant’s
counterclaim since he also
carried the same or equal burden
as the respondent. From the
record however, we find that
like the respondent, the
appellant was not able, on the
balance of the probabilities, to
establish his counterclaim. We
accordingly uphold the Court of
Appeal’s dismissal of
appellant’s counterclaim and
upon that, we dismiss the
appeal.
Y. APPAU
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC:-
I agree with the conclusion and
reasoning of my brother Appau,
JSC.
S. O. A. ADINYIRA (MRS)
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
YEBOAH, JSC:-
I agree with the conclusion and
reasoning of my brother Appau,
JSC.
ANIN YEBOAH
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC:-
I agree with the conclusion and
reasoning of my brother Appau,
JSC.
P. BAFFOE-BONNIE
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
PWAMANG, JSC:-
I agree with the conclusion and
reasoning of my brother Appau,
JSC.
G. PWAMANG
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
COUNSEL
FOR THE
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.
FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.
|