AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE LIMITED v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
2012
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- DATE-BAH JSC (PRESIDING)
- ANSAH JSC
- DOTSE JSC
- BONNIE JSC
- BAMFO(MRS) JSC
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Constitutional Law
2012
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the Ghana Supreme Court, Dr. S. K. DateBah JSC, writing for a unanimous panel including J. Ansah, J. V. M. Dotse, P. BaffoeBonnie, and V. AkotoBamfo (Mrs), dismissed a further appeal by a car dealer against the Ministry of Information. The dealer had sold vehicles for cash and provided aftersales servicing on credit, claiming over GH2,14,174,693.12 based on a purported 1991 creditfacility letter (Exhibit A) and an alleged acceptance (Exhibit B). The High Court (Justice Torkornoo) found no binding credit agreement because Exhibit A prescribed acceptance by signing, dating, and stamping the same letter, which never occurred, and Exhibit B was undated, lacked letterhead, and was unsigned. The High Court nonetheless found an outstanding debt of 1,563.64 Ghana cedis as at April 1999 and awarded interest at the prevailing commercial banking rate. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld those rulings, held contract formation is a legal question for the court (not the referee), rejected compound interest, and noted Article 181(3) was inapplicable.
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