AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE LIMITED v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

DR. DATE-BAH JSC

This is an action brought by a car dealer in respect of outstanding sums owed it for the servicing of the motor vehicles of the Ministry of Information. While the fact of the plaintiff’s services having been rendered to it was admitted by the Ministry, there was an issue as to the exact sum due and the interest rate to be applied in relation to the unpaid indebtedness.

The plaintiff in its Statement of Claim, filed on 31st January 2008, averred that, by a letter of 27th January 1997, it had accepted the Ministry’s request for a credit facility and entered into an agreement with the defendants regarding the sale and servicing of motor vehicles by it. This averment was denied by the defendant when he eventually filed his Statement of Defence, on 10th July 2008, after succeeding in setting aside a judgment in default of defence, which had meanwhile been entered against him. After the close of pleadings, the two issues set down for trial were:

1. “Whether or not Plaintiffs and Defendants have any credit agreement with any mode of calculating interest upon default.

2. Whether or not Defendants are indebted to Plaintiffs.”

At the trial before the learned trial High Court Judge, Her Ladyship Justice Torkornoo of the Commercial Division of the High Court, evidence was heard from the plaintiff’s witness and a referee who had been appointed, during the pre-trial settlement stage of the proceedings, by the Court to enquire into the accounting differences between the parties. However, the defendant offered no evidence and did not participate in the trial, although he had notice of it.

In her judgment after the trial, the learned High Court judge held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the terms of any credible agreement with the Ministry which should lead to the sum claimed. In the plaintiff’s writ, its claim was for “recovery of the sum of GH 14,174,693.12 being outstanding sums owed Plaintiff as at 31st January 2008” and interest on the sums from date of judgment until date of final payment. Lecturn

At the trial, one Harrison Teye testified for the plaintiff that it had sold motor vehicles to the Ministry and provided it with after sales service. He indicated that the sale of motor vehicles was for cash, while the after sales service was on credit basis covered by an agreement. He claimed that the credit facility agreement was in writing and the Ministry had accepted it. He tendered this alleged credit facility agreement into evidence a