ACQUAFRESH LIMITED VS S & J GENERATIONS CO. LTD
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, a fruit drink producer, sued the defendant, a goods distributor, for recovery of an unpaid debt of GH¢39,343.09. The parties had an agreement for supply on credit with payment within two weeks. The defendant's cheque to partially cover the debt was dishonored, and despite a proposal to repay monthly and providing a truck as security, the defendant failed to make further payments. The plaintiff sued to recover the debt, interest, and to sell the truck. The court held in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing the truck as security and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, which alleged the truck was rented out.
1 Plaintiff’s case The parties are local limited liability companies; plaintiff is in the production and sale of fruit drinks, whilst defendant is engaged in the distribution and sale of goods.
The parties are in business relationship, and that pursuant to this relationship, in 2009 they entered into what they describe as ‘supply on credit and payment within two weeks agreement’. According to plaintiff, as at December 2012, defendant was indebted to it in the sum of GH¢42, 843. 09. Plaintiff claims that defendant’s cheque of GH¢31, 776. 80 drawn on 10 January 2013 ostensibly to defray part of the debt was dishonoured by the bank on presentment.
Defendant pleaded that plaintiff continues to supply it with goods on cash and carry basis to enable parties continue with the two weeks payment agreement to redeem the debt.
Plaintiff claims that on purchase of goods on two occasions defendant failed to redeem its debt.
Based on persistent failure upon demands for payment of the debt, plaintiff claims that defendants in August 2013 pleaded with plaintiffs to accept GH¢5, 000 as monthly repayment to repay the debt until it is amortized.
Plaintiff says, as a sign of good faith defendant brought its truck GS 7550-10 to plaintiff’s premises as security.
Plaintiff says that between February and March 2014, defendant paid GH¢3, 500 to reduce the debt to GH¢39, 343. 09 and had thereafter made no attempt to service the debt as promised despite repeated demands necessitating therefore the issuing of writ of summons against defendant for the recovery of: (a) The sum of GHc39, 343. 09 being the outstanding balance on goods supplied to them by the plaintiffs(b) Interest at the current bank rate from 1 April 2014 to the date of final payment(c) An order for sale of Truck with Registration No. GS 7550-10 to defray the debt of 39, 343. 09 after the period determined by the court.
2 Defendant’s case Defendant admits the business relationship but denies its indebtedness to plaintiff in its statement of defence.
In another breadth however defendant admits to have paid plaintiff GH¢3, 500 between February and March 2014 to reduce its indebtedness to GH¢39, 343. 09. 1 Contending that it hired out or rented its truck GS 7550-10 to plaintiff at an agreed monthly fee of GH¢7, 000, and not as security for payment of the debt, defendant counterclaims against plaintiff for: (i) An order for the plaintiff to pay to the defendant GH¢7, 000 each month for the use of the truck from Febr