CLIPPER LEASING CORPORATION v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & ORS

OFOE, J.A.

From the record of appeal we say with certainty that the defendant/appellant had abandoned their appeal. What is before us is the cross appeal of the plaintiff/ respondent. We will continue to refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendants as they were at the trial court. It is therefore the plaintiff whose cross appeal we are dealing with. The issues to be determined in this cross appeal are such that not much of the pleadings and the evidence before the court would be of relevance to us. The background facts necessary to understanding this opinion are as follows. The plaintiff is an aircraft leasing company. It entered into terms of a leasing agreement with the Ghana Airways Limited, the 2nd defendant whereby a DC10 aircraft was leased to the 2nd defendant for a period of 36 calendar months at a basic rent of US$260,000. Claiming that the 2nd defendant owes it rent arrears and has further breached the agreement to return the aircraft to it after expiration of the agreement issued a writ against the 2nd defendant claiming as follows

“a. Recovery of thirty-five million and twenty-one thousand, four hundred and eighty eight thousand dollars (US$35,021,488) being outstanding rent for the lease of the aircraft, McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 Series Aircraft and replacement engines.

b. Interest on the sum of thirty-five million and twenty-one thousand, four hundred and eighty eight thousand dollars ($35,021,488) from 20th June 2001 to the date of final payment.

c. Return of the aircraft, McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 Series Aircraft with Manufacturer’s Serial Number 46554 and Registration Number GH-PHN and the replacement engines fixed on them by the Plaintiff in accordance with the conditions of return under section 9 of the lease agreement or in the alternative, the cost of the aircraft and engines.

d. Damages for breach of contract by the 4th Defendant

e. Costs”.

Before this suit it had hauled the 2nd defendant into a British court for the purpose of claiming its debts. Plaintiff alleges that because the Transport Ministry wrote a letter, dated the15th September 2004 to it expressing its intention to assume liability of the 2nd defendant’s debts and requesting for negotiations towards settlement of these debts, it had to abandon the British suit and chose the government proposed negotiation believing that the Ghanaian authorities would support a successful negotiation. Whilst the negotiations for settlement was on going the government of Ghana