J U D G M E N T The plaintiff claims against the defendants the following reliefs: (a) Refund of the sum of US$12,200.00.   
(b) Interest on the said sum at the prevailing commercial bank rate from August 21, 2012 till the date of final payment.   
(c) Costs.   
(d) Any other order(s) the court may deem fit. 
The plaintiff is a dealer in second hand (used) vehicle spare parts at Abossey Okai, Accra. The defendant is a trader who sells second hand (used) vehicle spare parts at Abossey Okai, Accra.  
The plaintiff’s case is that he travelled to South Korea in August 2012, on a business trip and realized that he needed extra money to transact the business he went for. He said a friend informed him that someone called Wofa, was scheduled to visit South Korea from Ghana around that time and his telephone number was given to the plaintiff as 0244694462. It is the plaintiff’s case that he transmitted the information to his shop assistant (agent) to call him on the given cell phone number, identify the said Wofa and give him an amount of twelve thousand two hundred United States dollars $12,200.00 to be sent to the plaintiff in South Korea. It was submitted that in transmitting the telephone number orally, one digit was misquoted making the 
2  
number 0244894462 instead of 0244694462. It was asserted that the wrong number 0244894462, was the defendant’s cell phone number. It was stated that the plaintiff’s agent called the telephone number 0244894462 which the defendant responded to and went to the plaintiff’s agent on 21st August, 2012, to collect the twelve thousand two hundred United States dollars $12,200.00 but he failed to send to the plaintiff. On the plaintiff’s return to Ghana, he made a complaint to the Ghana Police Service and the defendant was charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to a fine of one thousand two hundred Ghana Cedis GH¢1,200.00  by the Circuit Court 8, Accra on 20th January 2014. It was stated that the defendant paid the fine but did not refund the plaintiff’s money.  
The defendant case is that the plaintiff lodged a complaint at the Achimota Police Station against him and he was invited. He told the police that on the date in question his shop was robbed and his cell phone was stolen, so he went for a new sim card having caused the original phone line to be blocked. Defendant said he does not agree with the judgment of the Circuit Court but decided to put the matter to rest as an appeal would also consume much of his business time. So he decided to refund the money and has since refunded a total of GH¢5,000.00.       
The issues for trial are as follows: 
a. Whether or not the defendant was charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to a fine of 100 penalty units by the Circuit Court over the said US$12,200.00? b. Whether or not the defendant has refunded the sum of US$12,200.00 dollars to the plaintiff? c. Whether or not the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff?  
The issue of whether or not the defendant was charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to a fine of 100 penalty units by the Circuit Court over the said US$12,200.00 is not in dispute as the facts, evidence led and exhibit B establish that beyond any doubt.  
The issues of whether or not the defendant has refunded the sum of US$12,200.00 dollars to the plaintiff and that of whether or not the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff would be determined together as they deal with the same issue. The 
3  
plaintiff’s attorney Sandice Boadi tendered a Power of Attorney (exhibit A) and testified on behalf of the plaintiff. He said he sells spare parts and the plaintiff is his boss.  The plaintiff’s attorney gave evidence that he knows the defendant. According to him on the 21/08/2012 the plaintiff called him from Korea and said he needed $12,200.00 to be transferred to him. He said the plaintiff gave him the telephone number 0244894462 to call one ‘Wofa’ and he did. He stated that when the person picked the telephone he asked him if he was ‘Wofa’ and he said yes. He added that he asked him if he was the person who had been asked by the plaintiff to send the money to him and he said yes and showed the plaintiff’s attorney where he could find him at the Kingsby roundabout at Achimota. The plaintiff’s attorney said he showed the defendant the shirt he was wearing and he identified him. The plaintiff’s attorney testified that he called the plaintiff who said he had also spoken to the defendant. He said he gave the defendant the $12,200.00, he counted or checked it, and they parted ways. The plaintiff’s attorney contended that after he had parted ways with the defendant, the plaintiff called him from Korea and asked if he could identify the person to whom he had given the money. He said he became apprehensive and the plaintiff said he suspected that the money had been given to the wrong person. The plaintiff’s attorney said he went back to the person who gave him the telephone number and he said the plaintiff had mixed up the numbers and that the correct number is 0244694462. He asserted that he reported to the Achimota police and they tried tracing the number but to no avail until the plaintiff came back from Korea. He said when the plaintiff returned to Ghana, they assisted the police and the person was arrested after Christmas, prosecuted, found guilty and asked to refund the money. The plaintiff’s attorney said the defendant did not pay the money and tendered a copy of the judgment as exhibit B.      
Under cross-examination the plaintiff’s attorney admitted he gave the money to one ‘Wofa’. He admitted that before giving the money to ‘Wofa’, he had confirmation from the plaintiff that the person he gave the money to was indeed ‘Wofa’. He said he did not know the defendant’s name was not ‘Wofa’. Under cross-examination it was suggested to the plaintiff’s attorney that he could not have given the money to the defendant who is not called ‘Wofa’, and he answered that the plaintiff gave him the number and added the name ‘Wofa’ and when he met the defendant, he asked if he was ‘Wofa’ and he said yes. Under cross-examination the plaintiff’s attorney said prior to giving the money to ‘Wofa’ he did not know him and did he did not take any 
4  
receipt. Under cross-examination the plaintiff’s attorney stated that he does not have anything to indicate that indeed he gave the money to ‘Wofa’, except that when he gave the money to ‘Wofa’ he spoke to the plaintiff and the plaintiff confirmed that the person he gave the money to was ‘Wofa’. Under cross-examination the plaintiff’s attorney said ‘Wofa’ was not alone when he gave the money to him, but was with a group of people in the vehicle. Under cross-examination the plaintiff’s attorney insisted that he was able to identify the person he gave the money to, and that it was the defendant. He stated that it was in court that he realized that the defendant was not the Wofa that he should have given the money to.  
PW1 Seidu Yussif, Registrar, Circuit Court, Accra tendered exhibits in respect of case no. D4/106/2013; The Republic v. Michaeal Ohene Nyako. They are the telephone calls of the defendant herein and accused therein as exhibit C and the request for assistance, exhibit D. Under cross-examination PW1 said what he knows about exhibit C is that, the prosecution tendered it in the criminal trial on 07/10/2013. He disagreed that exhibit C was manufactured by the plaintiff herein and complainant therein.  
The defendant in his pleadings contended that he has refunded a total of GH¢5,000.00 to the plaintiff, but led no evidence to prove same. He also did not tender any receipt in support of his claim. The plaintiff insists that the defendant has made no payment of the amount he owes him.    
I have deliberately reproduced the evidence adduced, as it speaks for itself. Evaluating the totality of the evidence adduced, I come to the conclusion that the defendant has not made any payment of the amount owed to the plaintiff. I therefore find as a fact that the defendant owes the plaintiff US$12,200.00. 
From the proceedings the defendant was present in court and had a lawyer representing him. Despite several notices to the defendant to open his defence, neither he nor his lawyer attended court. The defendant is therefore deemed to have waived opening his case or giving his version of the case.  
Exhibit B is the judgment of H/H Judge Seyram Tsatsu Yao Azumah dated 20th January 2014, in The Republic v. Michael Ohene Nyarko. It is important to note that the lawyer for the accused person in the said criminal case Mr. Robert Allotey is the same lawyer for the defendant in this present case. In the said judgment the 
5  
accused was found guilty, sentenced to pay a fine of 100 penalty units or in default 36 months IHL. The accused was also directed to pay the 12, 200.00 dollars to PW1. PW1 therein is Joseph Siaw Boateng, the plaintiff herein.  
The defendant did not appeal the decision of the said court. It is therefore binding on him. 
An evaluation of the evidence adduced indicates that the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proof on him as required by Section 11(1) and (4) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323). Judgment is therefore entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant herein for all the reliefs. The defendant is ordered to pay the Ghana Cedis equivalent of US$12,200.00 to the plaintiff. The defendant is also ordered to pay the Ghana Cedis equivalent of the interest on the said sum at the prevailing bank rate from August 21, 2012 till the date of final payment.   
I have considered the factors stated in Order 74 rule 2(3) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) as amended by C.I.87 and the facts and circumstances of this case and award costs of GH¢8,000.00  to the plaintiff against the defendant herein.   
      (SGD.)                                       GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA  (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)   
Counsel:                                                                                   
1. Mr. Kweku Nyamekye Aidoo for Plaintiff. 
2. Mr. Robert Davies Allotey for Defendant.   