CHARLES AMMAH VS US GROUP OF COMPAINIES LTD & ORS

The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants jointly and severally was for the following reliefs:

a) An order for specific performance of the entire contract for the entire duration of the contract.

b) An order for the payment of an amount of GH¢15,000.00.

c) General Damages.

d) Interest on reliefs b) and c) from the date it fell due till the date of final payment, at the current banking rate.

e) In default of reliefs a), b) and c), an order for the judicial sale of the landed and/or movable property of the Defendants.

f) Costs.

It was the Plaintiff’s case that in 2012, the 1st Defendant, a Company registered to carry out the business of fishing and other investment schemes, advertised inviting the general public to invest in a tilapia farm scheme. Based on this, he invested GH¢6,510.00, which entitled him to half of a fraction of a cage that comprised 3000 fishes for 10 years. He was additionally entitled to an amount of GH¢15,000.00 every 6 months for the duration of the contract. He had not been paid his due in spite of repeated demands, although the date for maturity had elapsed.

The Defendants, in their Statement of Defence, contended that they could not find a ready market for the fish. They declared that all returns due to the Plaintiff would be paid to him upon harvest and sale of the fish.

The issues set down for trial were as follows:

1. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed on the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim?

2. Whether or not the Defendants have breached the contract between themselves and the Plaintiff?

3. Any other issues arising from the pleadings.

The Defendants were served with hearing notices for 3rd and 18th July 2014. Further hearing notices for 19th August 2014 and 3rd September 2014 were issued to the Defendants, who failed to attend court for the hearing to commence.

In Ankumah v. City Investment Co. Ltd (2007/2008) SCGLR 1064, it was held that a court was entitled to give a default judgment if a party failed to appear after he had been given notice of the proceedings. For then it would be justifiable to assume that he did not wish to be heard. The court therefore proceeded to hear evidence on the Plaintiff’s claim in spite of the Defendants’ refusal and/or failure to attend the hearing.

The Plaintiff told the court he got to know the Defendants through adverts they made on the airwaves asking for investments. On 7th August 2012, he invested GH¢6,510.00 in the venture. He was to