Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
January 28, 2025
HIGH COURT
By the Plaintiff 's pleadings, it is a company incorporated in Ghana that carries on the business of importation and sale of petroleum products as a distributor. That its predecessor Unique Oil Company Limited and nominated representative, Gaso Petroleum Limited had an oral contract with 1 st Defendant for the supply of diesel for which there was an outstanding debt owed it by the Defendants. Plaintiff therefore issued a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows:
a. Recovery of the sum of Five Hundred and FiftyTwo Thousand, Six Hundred and TwentySeven Ghana Cedis, NinetyOne Pesewas (GH¢552,627.91) being the debt owed the Plaintiff by the 1 st Defendant pursuant to the sale of petroleum products agreement made between Plaintiff and Defendants which they have failed to pay.
b. Recovery of interest on the amount of Five Hundred and FiftyTwo Thousand, Six Hundred and TwentySeven Ghana Cedis, NinetyOne Pesewas (GH¢552,627.91) at the commercial bank rate from the date of sale till date of final payment.
c. An order to lift the corporate veil of 1 st Defendant in order to find 2 nd Defendant equally liable for the debt as 2 nd Defendant is using 1 st Defendant as his alter ego to evade his legal obligations.
d. Costs occasioned by the suit including legal fees; and
e. Any other order as the Court will deem fit.
Defendants case is that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed as Plaintiff is not ' known to the Defendants and Plaintiff has failed to show evidence of any transaction between the parties in this suit for which these claims are being made.
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S CASE
It is Plaintiff's case that per an arrangement between Unique Oil Company and Plaintiff Company dated 22 nd September, 2015, Plaintiff was assigned the debts of Unique Oil which were intended to be recovered by the Plaintiff from the debtors of Unique Oil. That 1 st Defendant happened to be one of those companies that purportedly owe Unique Oil. In paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim it averred as follows:
'5. Plaintiff states that by an assignment debt dated 22 nd September, 2015 made between Plaintiff as assignment and Unique Oil Company Limited, a limited liability company, as assignor, the assignor transferred all its debts to the Plaintiff since the assignor was indebted to the Plaintiff.
6. Plaintiff states that its assigned debts were meant to be recovered and proceeds used to liquida
AI Generated Summary
The High Court (Sheila Minta, J.) dismissed the action by CHY Trading Ltd. against Biglebb Construction & Crushing Ltd. and its director seeking recovery of GHS 552,627.91, interest, veil piercing, and costs based on an alleged assignment of Unique Oil Company Ltd.’s receivables. CHY relied on an oral supply arrangement between Unique Oil/its representative Gaso Petroleum Ltd. and Biglebb, tendered dishonoured cheques issued to Gaso Petroleum, an unsigned statement of account prepared by Unique Oil, and an assignment agreement. The Court held CHY lacked locus standi and an enforceable cause of action: shareholding in Unique Oil or Gaso Petroleum does not confer standing; companies are separate legal persons. Section 7 of the Contracts Act requires written notice to the debtor for assignments; CHY failed to prove written notification or join the assignor. Cross-examination revealed Biglebb admitted owing Gaso Petroleum (not CHY), and CHY produced no invoices or waybills. The Court found the evidence insufficient under Majolagbe v Larbi and declined to reach other issues, making no order as to costs.