AU JEWELLERY LLC vs ITALTEC (GH) LTD & ANOTHER
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JANAPARE A. BARTELS-KODWO (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiff, a company from Dubai, sued the Defendants, a Ghanaian company, for a $283,000 refund due to a shortfall in supplied gold under an agreement from October 3, 2012. After reviewing evidence, including a reconciliation agreement, the court found the 1st Defendant had not met their obligations, confirming the debt. Defendants' counterclaims were dismissed, and Plaintiff’s claims were upheld. The court found the 1st Defendant was only an exporter, not an owner, of a disputed shipment and that a letter from July 22, 2013, constituted a binding personal guarantee from the 2nd Defendant to repay the shortfall.
Plaintiff is a Limited Liability Company dealing in gold with its registered office in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE). 1st Defendant is a Company registered under the laws of Ghana and licensed to buy and sell gold while 2nd Defendant is the Managing Director of the 1st Defendant Company.
With leave of the Court the Plaintiff filed an amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on 10th November seeking the following reliefs: a. Refund of Two Hundred and Eighty-Three Thousand United States Dollars(US$283, 000. 00) being money paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for a consideration under the Agreement dated 3rd October, 2012 which has wholly failed.
b. Interest on the said sum of Two Hundred and Eighty-Three Thousand United States Dollars (US$283, 000. 00) from 28th December, 2012 till date of final payment.
c. Costs including Solicitor’s fees.
d. And any or other reliefs.
PLAINTIFFS’ CASE It is the Plaintiff’s case that by an arrangement dated the 3rd day of October, 2012, made between Plaintiff and 1st Defendant (the “Agreement”), Plaintiff agreed to purchase from 1st Defendant Dore Bar Gold in the form of unrefined gold metal (the “Gold Bars”) at a discount of 2. 25% less LME plus -3$ traded off the price per oz.
It was also agreed the volumes above 100kg would attract additional higher discount to be negotiated.
It avers further that per the Agreement, Plaintiff was to “forward purchase”, that is, to pre-finance the purchase of the Gold Bars from 1st Defendant by paying in advance all the money covering the cost of the Gold Bars.
1st Defendant was mandated to use the said money to purchase the Gold Bars from local miners in Ghana for export to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff further states that on the 28th of December, 2012, Plaintiff and Defendants reviewed the“Agreement” and detected that 1st Defendant had, in breach of the Agreement, made a short fall or deficit in the supply of the Gold Bars to Plaintiff to the total amount of Two Hundred and Eighty-Three Thousand United States Dollars (US$283, 000. 00). It contended that consequently, Defendants agreed to pay for the shortfall either in cash or by the supply of Gold Bars with 3% interest on the reducing balance per month to be completed within three (3) months, latest by the 31st of March, 2013. This agreement was reduced into an addendum(the “Addendum”) dated 28th December, 2012. However the Defendants have failed, refused and/or neglected to supply the Gold Bars or refund the outstanding ba