BORIS B. FARMS & VET. SUPPLIES VRS BEACON HILL INDUSTRIES LTD.

This is an interlocutory appeal by the Defendant/Appellant (hereafter referred to as Appellant) against the ruling of the High Court, (Commercial Division) Kumasi dated 13th May, 2024 in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereafter referred to as Respondent).

The said ruling refused an objection raised by Counsel for the Appellant regarding the admissibility of two documents titled “Loan Agreement Between Boris B’s Farms & Veterinary Supplies Ltd and Beacon Hill Industries Ltd” and “Transaction Payment Agreement” and admitting same as Exhibits A and B.

The grounds of appeal are as follows:

a. The ruling of the High Court was against the weight of evidence.

b. The trial Judge erred when he held that the documents titled “Loan Agreement Between Boris B’s Farms & Veterinary Supplies Ltd and Beacon Hill Industries Ltd” and “Transaction Payment Agreement” are exempt from the requirement of stamping under the Stamp Duty Act 2005 (Act 689) and admitted same as Exhibit A and B.

c. The decision of the trial Judge to admit the documents titled “Loan Agreement Between Boris B’s Farms & Veterinary Supplies Ltd and Beacon Hill Industries Ltd” and “Transaction Payment Agreement” was per incuriam Section 32 of the Stamp Duty Act 2005 (Act 689) and the Supreme Court decision of Lizori Limited v. Boye & School of Domestic Science and Catering (2013-2014) SCGLR 889; Woodhouse Ltd v. Airtel Ghana Ltd (2017-2018) SCLRG 615 and Nii Aflah v. Benjamin Kwaku Boateng, Civil Appeal No. J4/80/2022 dated March 22, 2023 (unreported).

d. The trial Judge erred when he overruled the objection by Counsel for Appellant in respect to the documents titled “Loan Agreement Between Boris B’s Farms & Veterinary Supplies Ltd and Beacon Hill Industries Ltd” and “Transaction Payment Agreement”.

The reliefs sought from the Court of Appeal are:

a. An order reversing the ruling of the High Court dated May 13, 2024 regarding the admissibility of Exhibits A and B.

b. An order by the Court of Appeal upholding the objection to the admissibility of Exhibits A and B and rejecting same as inadmissible.

c. Any further or other order(s) as this Court may deem fit.

On the 17/05/2023, the Plaintiff/Respondent instituted this action jointly and severally against the Defendant/Appellant and one other for the following reliefs:

1. Recovery of the sum of Eight Million One Hundred thirty-four thousand six Hundred fourteen cedis eighty-four pesewas (GH¢8, 134,614.84).
2. Agr