Parties settle Accra chair-hire refund dispute for GHS 850 after missed delivery deadline

A dispute over chairs booked for a family lunch in Accra has ended in a GHS 850 settlement. Abena Sarpong sought the return of the GHS 900 she paid Kojo Nartey for 30 chairs that were due by 10 a.m.; she claimed no additional damages. The matter, listed for the District Court in Accra, was resolved by agreement rather than a recorded judicial decision.

The central disagreement was whether Abena’s response to a warning about a vehicle delay merely acknowledged the problem or accepted delivery after the agreed time. The settlement does not decide that question, and its wording expressly avoids stating that she waived the 10 a.m. deadline.

The settlement provides for payment of GHS 850 by documented bank transfer within three business days. That is GHS 50 less than the refund Abena sought. The supplied record does not confirm that the transfer has been completed.

The release is limited to the chair-hire dispute. The parties also agreed to neutral wording, with no statement that Abena had given up the original delivery deadline. These are negotiated terms, not judicial findings about whether either party breached the agreement.

Abena’s position was that she paid for delivery by a particular time, not whenever the chairs became available. She maintained that acknowledging Kojo’s warning did not alter the agreement. At 11:15 a.m., with the chairs still absent and lunch approaching, she told him not to come.

The competing interpretation identified in the record was that she had accepted a later delivery. Her initial response to the delay warning did not expressly reject it, creating the factual tension at the heart of the refund claim. No fuller submission from Kojo is recorded.

The booking was for 30 chairs to be delivered in Accra by 10 a.m. on 8 August 2026. The terms were agreed before payment. That morning, Kojo warned that his vehicle was delayed, and Abena acknowledged the warning and asked to be kept updated.

The record identifies a receipt signed by Kojo confirming both the GHS 900 payment and the 10 a.m. delivery deadline. It also identifies a WhatsApp thread recording Abena’s 11:15 cancellation and Kojo’s reply, although the contents of his reply are not supplied.

There were no witnesses to the enquiry, agreement, payment or refund request. The documents therefore supplied the recorded support for the original terms and subsequent communications. With no judgment resolving their meaning, the settlement closes the payment dispute without establishing whether the deadline had been changed.