BEATRICE ALLI AMOAH AND SAMUEL ATIMOH v. DR. ISAAC ENYAW ENTERPRISES AND STEPHEN AME ATTAH OWUSU
November 28, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE EMMANUEL A. LODOH, J
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
November 28, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court, per Justice Emmanuel Atsu Lodoh, resolved a dispute stemming from a loan facility and unpaid supply of frozen fish involving Adepa Total Ventures. Beatrice Ali Amoah lent money to the business when it was operated by Stephen Kwame Attah Owusu, and Madamfo Coldstore supplied GH65,728 of fish products. On 20 March 2018, Owusu sold Adepa Total Ventures to Dr. Isaac Enyan under a written agreement (Exhibit F) valuing assets at GH300,000 and expressly requiring the purchaser to assume all liabilities and indemnify the vendor, including Amoahs and Madamfos debts. The court found plaintiffs non-payment evidence unchallenged in cross-examination, bound Enyan to Exhibit F absent fraud or misrepresentation, rejected his misrepresentation and termination claims for lack of proof, and awarded Amoah GH208,000 plus bank-rate simple interest from May 2018, Madamfo Coldstore GH65,728 plus bank-rate interest from 1 January 2019, general damages of GH20,000, and costs of GH20,000. Claims against Owusu were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is a simple matter arising out of contract for a loan facility and supply of goods. I
am extremely saddened that this matter had to go through full trial which spanned a
little close to the north of two years. I am of the considered view that the lawyers in this
matter, giving the commercial and personal relationships between the parties, and the
simplicity of the issues involved, failed in their duty to actively encourage the parties to
take advantage of the pre-trial mediation conference to resolve this dispute. Indeed I
find from their conduct that they rather unfortunately emboldened the parties to go
through the drudgery of a laborious, time and expense consuming litigation. Let me
ride on the back of this case to encourage lawyers to as a fundamental rule prioritise to
use of alternative dispute mechanisms in resolving disputes. Be that as it may, as fate
would have it, the court has been called upon to determine the respective rights of the
parties, which is an exercise I would not struggle to deal with given the
straightforwardness of the issues arising out of this case.
The plaintiffs on 8th November, 2019, took out the instant writ against the two
defendants claiming jointly and severally the following alternative reliefs as endorsed
on the Writ of Summons and statement of claim. These reliefs are:
1. An order directed at the Defendants to jointly pay to the 1st Plaintiff the total
amount of Two hundred and twenty nine thousand, one hundred and forty one
Ghana Cedis and Ninety six pesewas (GH¢229, 141.96) they owe as loan to the 1st
Plaintiff together with the agreed interest on the said amount from 1st November,
2019 to the date of final payment.
2. An order directed at the defendants to jointly pay to the 2nd Plaintiff the total
amount of Sixty-five thousand, seven hundred and twenty eight Ghana Cedis
(GH¢65, 728.00) they owe to the 2nd Plaintiff for the supply of fish products
together with interest calculated at the commercial bank rate from 1st January,
2019 to date of final payment.
3. Damages for breach of agreement and obligations.
4. Costs
5. Any other relief(s) arising from the pleading and hearing
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE ABOVE
1. An order directed at the 1st Defendant to pay to the 1st Plaintiff the total amount
of Two hundred and twenty nine thousand, one hundred and forty one Ghana
Cedis and Ninety six pesewas (GH¢229, 141.96) he owes as loan under his said
take