Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
January 27, 2025
HIGH COURT
BRIEF SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff a company in the business of trading and selling steel products has had to issue a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on 10 th October, 2018 against the 1 st Defendant and 2 nd Defendant the Chairman of the 1 st Defendant Company. The 1 st Defendant Company is also a manufacturer in the steel products business. Their relationship as seller and buyer was carried out in a manner of credit sale agreements and sometimes loans repayable in goods or funds. The Plaintiff has sued the Defendants for the payment of various sums of money for the supply of steel billets, monies advanced to it to pay 1 st Defendant's indebtedness to Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) and for payment of scraps as well as monies advance for the payment of salaries of 1 st Defendant's workers.
The Defendants denied the claim of the Plaintiff. In the course of the trial certain matters came up which revealed that the 1 st Defendant Company was in liquidation/receivership but nothing was done to amend the title of the suit to reflect the 1 st Defendant Company's name as (In Liquidation/Receivership) as required by the Bodied Corporate Official Liquidations Act, 1963 (Act 180) or the Corporate Insolvency & Restructuring Act, 2020 (Act 1015).
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
The Plaintiff 's narrative is that 1 st Defendant is one of the companies from which it procured iron rods for onward supply to its customers. That on some occasions it supplied steel billet (raw materials for the production of iron rods) on credit to 1 st Defendant for the production of iron rods. That sometime in October 2013, 1 st Defendant's factory was shut down by Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG). This shut down necessitated 1 st Defendant to make requests to Plaintiff for a loan to pay off its indebtedness to the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) and also for the payment for scraps and salaries of 1 st Defendant's worker s. The 1 st Defendant again requested Plaintiff to import and supply it with steel billets to enable them produce iron rods for Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff it acceded to the 1 st Defendant's requests on certain conditions, some of which were that 1 st Defendant was to provide Plaintiff with exclusive supply of iron rods produced from the imported billets supplied, as well as the value of iron rods in the sums advanced to 1 st Defendant to include agreed interest thereon.
Plaintiff averred that pursuant to an agreement on 1 st November, 2013, it imported a
AI Generated Summary
This High Court judgment by Justice Sheila Minta concerns a debt recovery action between B5 Plus Limited and Special Steels Limited, with Special Steels’ chairman, Alex Asiedu, also named. B5 Plus alleged that, across a long relationship mixing credit sales and barter, it supplied steel billets and various cash advances so Special Steels could produce iron rods for B5 Plus, including US$4.2 million in billets and a US$600,000 advance, plus payments relating to ECG arrears, scrap, salaries, maintenance, and customs duties. Special Steels denied any loan arrangements, characterizing the dealings as barter with discounted iron rod supplies, and claimed that all obligations had been met; it produced no documents, citing liquidation/receivership. The court applied the preponderance of probabilities standard and relied heavily on B5 Plus’s documents and admissions in Exhibits AM and AM3 confirming debts. The court held Special Steels liable for US$1,376,894.06, GHS45,045,466.31, GHS176,806.00, and 617.58MT of billets or their value, denied claims lacking proof (customs duties and restart loan), dismissed claims against Alex Asiedu, and awarded costs.