ABIVAMS CO. LTD VS PLATON GAS OIL GHANA LTD.

(1) INTRODUCTION On the 13th day of January, 2015 the plaintiff issued a writ of summons and statement of claim against the defendant for the following reliefs: a) An order for the recovery of the sum of USD 522, 010. 06 or its equivalent in Ghana Cedis at the prevailing Commercial rate of exchange.

b)Interest of 10 percent per annum on the said amount from 5th December 2014 till date of final payment.

c)General damages for breach of contract.

d)Costs assessed at 10 percent of the amount owed, including solicitor’s fees.

e) Any further order(s) that this honourable court could deem fit.

In its statement of defence filed on 27th January, 2015, the defendant denied liability for the claims of the plaintiff and stated that all payments it had made to the plaintiff in respect of crude oil supplied to the defendant were made for and on behalf of an entity called Omaroil which was the actual supplier of the crude oil and therefore the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant.

At the close of pleadings and on 31st day of January, 2020, the plaintiff filed its issues for determination but the defendant filed no additional issues and therefore on the 17th day of February, 2020, this court set down the following issues for determination: -(1) Whether or not the crude oil supplied to the defendant by Omar oil was owned by the plaintiff? (2) Whether or not – Omaroil was an agent of the plaintiff in respect of the supply of the said crude oil? (3) Whether or not the defendant owes the plaintiff cash the sum of five hundred and twenty-two thousand and ten US Dollars and six cents (US$522, 010. 06)? (4) Whether or not the defendant had authority to make payment of the sum of two hundred and forty thousand US dollars (US $ 240, 000. 00)from the amount due to be paid to the plaintiff, to Dome Energy? (5) Any other issues raised by the pleadings.

This case has suffered a chequered history.

As already noted above, the writ of summons and statement of claim was filed in January 2015. After the defendant entered appearance and filed its statement of defence on 27th January, 2015, the plaintiff brought an application for summary judgment under order 14 of C. I 47. This court, then differently constituted, refused the application on the ground that there were triable issues to be determined before judgement could be entered in favour of either party.

The plaintiff, aggrieved with the decision of this court dated 16th February, 2015, appealed the said decis