
JUDGMENT 
Plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for  
1) The payment of a total amount GHC 257,698.35 and  $7000 being an outstanding of money expended by plaintiff on a building project for  defendant and the cost of a bailing machine,  
2) Interest at bank rate from 15th February 2011till date of final payment.  
The defendant entered appearance and also counterclaimed for the following  1. A declaration that defendant is a 50% equity shareholder of the plaintiff’s used clothes business and therefore entitled to 50% of profits accruing to the business since 1989. 2. A declaration that plaintiff pays 50% of profits in the used clothes business to defendant 3. A declaration that plaintiff’s conversion of defendant’s two storey to a single storey house without his permission is wrongful and unlawful. 4. An order that defendant recover from plaintiff an amount of GHC 120,000 being the amount used to demolish and restore the building to the state in which it was before. 
2  
5. An order for recovery of $50.000being capital and accrued profits from bailing business set up by parties but solely run by plaintiff. 6. An order for audit an account to determine the plaintiff’s user of the bailing ma and defendant paid $chine and the warehouse as well as rents received from date of completion to date of handover by plaintiff. 7. A declaration that defendant has fully paid the GHC 100,000 business loan advanced by plaintiff in cash and stocks. 8. A declaration that transfer of Koshi Kutsienyo’s plot to Timothy Avege’s property to defendant. 9. An order directing plaintiff to deliver up to defendant the title deeds, building permits and all document relating to plot no RP/16/C3 and 16 belonging  to defendant to him. 10. Legal fees and cost.  
The plaintiff, a businesswoman who lives in Accra is the uterine sister of the defendant who also lives in the United States of America. According to the plaintiff she undertook to cause the construction of a two bedroom and another three bedroom furnished apartments for the defendant at Community 16, Lashibi Sakumono, Accra.   
The plaintiff avers that the defendant has taken over the two buildings together with her warehouse containing a baling machine, even though the warehouse belongs to her.   
Plaintiff said that she repurchased the land from the Nungua at GHC700.00 on defendant’s behalf, but defendant couldn’t pay for the land. She however agreed and undertook to build for the def. According to plaintiff she expended an amount of GHC 257,698.35 on the project together with furnishing and defendant paid an amount of $17,000 out of the project cost. Plaintiff said that the warehouse belonged to her but the defendant had also taken it with her bailing machine.   
Plaintiff denied the defendant being a 50% shareholder in her bailing business and denied owing the defendant $50,000. She also stated that Koshi Kutsienyo was alive and had not mandated the defendant to sue on his behalf. Plaintiff said 
3  
she was ready to hand over documents on the project as soon as she is paid what is due her,  
The defendant in his statement of defense stated that the plaintiff had lost her business capital when her husband died and her stepchildren siphoned all her money,  
 According to defendant in 1989, the plaintiff approached him in the UK to help salvage her business. He thus abandoned his schooling, job and pursuit of resident permit to come to Ghana to help to revamp the used clothes business for the plaintiff. He relocated to the US and also managed the plaintiff business dealings there. He said he continued organize the selection of good stock, supervise the bailing, purchasing and shipping of used clothing for the plaintiff. By virtue of the reorganization of the plaintiff’s business and his relocation to the US, the plaintiff promised him 50% of the profits of the business which made him a 50% equity owner of the business.  
Defendant stated that before leaving Ghana he bought two double plots of land for himself and his bosom friend Koshi Kutsienyo and requested plaintiff to start developing in one corner of each plot a two storey semi-detached house to lintel level. He further stated he continued to render services to plaintiff and in 2002 gave an amount of $12,000 as capital contribution to the business, in 2004 plaintiff informed him that his investment had grown to become $15,000.  
Defendant says that the parties had an agreement for the plaintiff to complete the project with her own resources and to rent the place out to recoup whatever she spent on the project. He said plaintiff has not rendered an account for the rental from1991 to 2006. Again since the building was not put up the way he wanted it and had to spend GHC 120,000 on demolishing and remodeling of the house.  
Defendant disputes the balance of GHC 149.291 being claimed because the various sums of money he transferred to plaintiff as well as rents collected had offset whatever he owed. He however admitted collecting financial help of GHC 100,000/00 from the plaintiff.  
4   
The issues for determination adopted on 29/18/12 were as follows. ? Whether or not plaintiff undertook a building project for the defendant including the warehouse ? Whether or not defendant has taken possession of the project including a warehouse and bailing machine ? Whether defendant has paid for the buildings including the warehouse and the baling machine. ? Whether or not defendant refunded the outstanding balance of the financial assistance. ? Whether on the account of the defendant’s substantial contribution to the rebuilding and revival of plaintiff’s business and upon representation by plaintiff is an owner in equity of 50% of plaintiff’s business. 
The fact of the agreement between the parties as to the construction    of the houses by plaintiff for defendant is not in contention, however the parties are both not in agreement on what is owed and to whom it is owed.        
The plaintiff has led evidence to show the cost of the apartments built for defendant as well as the warehouse with the baling machine. This evidence was corroborated by the plaintiff’s witness Augustus Kuma Tsorgali. Both plaintiff and her witness admitted that defendant had sent two used cars to be sold and proceeds put towards the project. Again they have both admitted $17000 being paid by defendant. This evidence went unchallenged.   
The burden of proof and persuasion remains on a plaintiff to prove unless and until the plaintiff is able to produce evidence of relevant facts and circumstances from which it can be said that they, defendant therefore counterclaimed was the view of Brobbey JSC in the case of OSAE VS ADJEIFIO (2007-2008) SCGLR @ 499.  
The defendant has admitted taking over the warehouse and apartments as alleged by the plaintiff and it therefore not in issue. What is in issue therefore is whether indeed the defendant has paid for the project fully.   
5  
From the defendant’s evidence, he said that at a point in time he had to give up his job and studies in the UK to come and salvage the plaintiff’s business and plaintiff promised him 50% of profits in the business. Defendant is also counterclaiming for a declaration that he is a 50% equity shareholder of plaintiff’s business and for an audit of the business and a declaration that it is illegal for plaintiff to transfer Kutsienu’s land to another brother’s name,  
The court did not consider anything about Kutsienu’s land since defendant did not have a power of attorney to sue plaintiff on his behalf. However the burden of proof shifts with the counterclaim. Adinyira JSC in the case of DON ACKAH VS PERGAH TRANSPORT ( 2010) SCGLR @728 stated that “it is a basic principle of the law of evidence that the party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail. It is trite law that matters that are capable of proof must be proved by producing sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the facts is more probable than its non-existence”.   
Sections 10 and 12 of NRCD 323 Evidence Act gives credence to the above statement.  
I have carefully considered the evidence and exhibits produced and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has adequately led evidence to establish her claim, the defendant on the other hand has failed to adequately prove his case. defendant’s  counterclaims are therefore dismissed, judgment is entered for the plaintiff in the sum   of amount GHC 257,698.35 and the cedi equivalent of $7000 being an outstanding of money expended by plaintiff on a building project for  defendant and the cost of a baling machine,  
Interest at bank rate from 15th February 2011 till date of final payment. Cost of GHC 5000 is awarded to the plaintiff.  
                                                         (SGD) DORIS BEMPONG (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT 