Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves a dispute between Evans Agbewornu (plaintiff) and Ewornuli Pius (defendant) over unpaid workmanship fees. The plaintiff claimed an agreement of Gh¢1,500.00 for painting and electrical work, with only Gh¢400.00 paid (Gh¢50.00 upfront and Gh¢350.00 part payment), leaving Gh¢1,100.00 outstanding. The defendant contended the agreed fee was Gh¢700.00, which he partially paid Gh¢350.00, and alleged the plaintiff did not complete the A/C installation. The court found the defendant's witness' testimony was hearsay, while the plaintiff's witness observed the negotiation. After investigating industry fees (painters quoted Gh¢400.00, electricians Gh¢100.00–Gh¢200.00 per 10 sockets), the court concluded the plaintiff failed to prove the Gh¢1,500.00 claim but is entitled to recover the Gh¢350.00 part payment as the outstanding balance.
Transaction Type
Service Agreement for painting and electrical work in a barbering shop
Issues
The court determined whether the plaintiff and defendant agreed on the workmanship fee for painting and electrical installation. The plaintiff claimed an agreement of Gh¢1,500.00, while the defendant asserted the agreed amount was Gh¢700.00. The court concluded the plaintiff failed to prove the Gh¢1,500.00 claim, awarding only Gh¢350.00 as the outstanding balance.
Holdings
- No order as to costs was made by the court.
- The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for Ghc1,500.00, finding he failed to prove the agreed amount. However, the defendant is liable to pay Ghc350.00, the outstanding balance, as the plaintiff is entitled to that sum. The court ruled that the plaintiff cannot demand fees beyond prevailing industry standards and that the evidence did not support the higher claim.
Remedies
- The plaintiff's claim for Ghc1,500.00 was dismissed because he failed to prove the agreed amount, as determined by the court on the balance of probability.
- The court did not issue an order regarding costs in this case.
- The defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff Ghc350.00, which is the amount he pleaded to be liable for, as the higher claim was dismissed.
Monetary Damages
350.00
Legal Principles
- The court emphasized that in a civil case, a party must produce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling against them. The plaintiff failed to establish the agreed fee of Gh¢1,500.00, as his witness's testimony was hearsay and lacked direct evidence of the negotiation. The defendant's claim of Gh¢700.00 was accepted due to the plaintiff's inability to meet the burden of proof.
- The judgment applied the 'preponderance of probabilities' standard under the Evidence Act, 1975. The court concluded that the plaintiff's evidence did not convince the tribunal that the existence of the Gh¢1,500.00 agreement was more probable than its non-existence, leading to the dismissal of the higher claim.
Cited Statute
Evidence Act 1975
Judge Name
Comfort Asamoa Sarpong
Passage Text
- The court took it upon itself to investigate into fees charged by these self-employed workers in the industry. Out of the three painters contacted two, quoted Ghc400. The third quoted an amount lower than Ghc400.
- Equity abhors unjust enrichment and the plaintiff cannot demand any fees just because he had started the work the defendant engaged him to do. The fees charged must reflect the prevailing fees charged by those in the profession even though they may not belong to any association.
- In conclusion therefore and on the balance of probability, it is my opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his claim of Ghc1,500.00 against the defendant. He is entitled to recover an amount of Ghc350.00 which is the outstanding balance from the defendant. The claim is dismissed. The defendant is liable to pay Ghc350.00 to the plaintiff, the amount he pleaded liable to.
Damages / Relief Type
- Plaintiff's claim for Ghc1,500.00 dismissed.
- Defendant to pay Ghc350.00 to plaintiff.
- No order for costs issued.