ABUBAKARI IBRAHIM vs SPRINT NETWORK LIMITED & ANOR

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The genesis of the instant suit is uncomplicated. It hinges on the desire of fourteen individuals to fulfil a religious duty. By an amended writ of summons filed on 20th November 2020, the Plaintiff claimed the following reliefs against the Defendants:

(a) Recovery of GHS170,200.00 being the outstanding amount paid to Defendants upon a guarantee by the 2nd Defendant to facilitate fourteen passengers’ travel to Saudi Arabia to perform the 2018 pilgrimage (Hajj) which Defendants failed to accomplish;

(b) Interest on the said sum of GHS170,200.00 from 1st August 2018 to date of final judgment;

(c) Recovery of GHS2,200.00 being money Defendants collected from Plaintiff under the pretext of paying the fare for a passenger to be flown to Nigeria which did not materialise as well as payment for airport expenses which turned out to be false;

(d) General damages for breach of contract;

(e) Costs; and

(f) Any other reliefs the Court may deem meet.

II. PLAINTIFF’S CASE

1. The Plaintiff averred that he is a Hajj agent doing business under the name and style of Insha Allah Hajj Travel and Tours resident in Tamale, and the 1st Defendant is a registered company engaged in organising pilgrims to undertake annual pilgrimage, commonly known as Hajj, to Mecca while the 2nd Defendant is its Chief Executive Officer. He also averred that the 2nd Defendant is a director, secretary and majority shareholder of 1st Defendant and therefore its alter ego.

2. Plaintiff averred that sometime in 2018 he received money from fourteen prospective pilgrims who wanted to undertake the 2018 Hajj but at the time the Hajj Board, which was in charge of Hajj pilgrimages in Ghana had closed its accounts thus the fourteen pilgrims could not undertake the pilgrimage under the auspices of the Hajj Board. He also averred that the 1st Defendant organises its operations independent of the Hajj Board and ferries passengers via Egypt Air Line from Accra to Medina in Saudi Arabia thus his passengers were not affected by the Hajj Board’s activities. Consequently, he approached the 2nd Defendant to inquire if he could airlift the prospective pilgrims and he agreed and demanded the sum of GHS18,000.00 per passenger which was subsequently reduced to GHS17,000.00. He also averred that the fee included airfare from Ghana to Nigeria where the pilgrims were to be airlifted to Mecca in Saudi Arabia after the Defendants had secured visas for the pr