Television technician dragged to court

Cecilia Nwamal, the plaintiff, testified on 25 June 2015, before Magistrate Colley that the defendant, Robert Kapalka, told her at her shop that he would fix her satellite disc for her television.

The defendant asked her to pay D4,500 to do the service for her.

She paid the said sum, and the defendant bought all the materials he needed for the service.

The defendant and her went to her house to do the work, and he told her that he would fix the receiver disc on top of her house. However, she told him that she had seen people fixing the receiver near the television set.

The defendant then told her that he did not come with a ladder to climb up; that his ladder was at his home, and he could not bring it to her home.

She told him that she could carry the ladder herself.

To her surprise, her landlord informed her that the defendant had sold the receiver to him.

She further testified that the television only functioned for a week and stopped, adding that she would phone the defendant but he would put her on answering machine.

She told the court she then asked another technician to check the work done by the defendant.

The technician told her that the defendant had fixed a twelve-watt gadget on her television, and that it would blow it off because it was too small for her television.

Then suddenly, the defendant phoned her and started insulting her. She passed her telephone to the technician to talk to the defendant, and he also insulted him.

The technician advised her to report the matter to the police, adding that it was the defendant who told her on the phone that he could not do anything about her television.

She reported the matter to the police, who arrested the defendant.

A police officer and the defendant together with her went to her home to check the work done by the defendant.

At her house, the police officer asked the defendant to show him the receiver he fixed for her, but he could not.

The police officer then told her that since the matter was a civil case, she should sue the defendant at the court.

The case was adjourned for the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff.