CWT COMMODITIES (GH) LTD and ANOTHER v. G4S SECURITY SERVICES LTD
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARIAMA OWUSU J.A. (PRESIDING)
- ADUAMA OSEI J.A
- TANKO AMADU J.A
Areas of Law
- Commercial Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiffs appealed against the High Court's decision which dismissed their claim for compensation for stolen cocoa beans allegedly due to Defendant's negligence in securing the warehouse. The Appellate Court considered various legal principles, including concurrent liability for contract and tort and the application of 'res ipsa loquitor'. It upheld the Trial Court's decision, finding no adequate evidence of negligence and affirming that the Plaintiffs' choice of a tort action limited their remedies.
TANKO AMADU J.A
(1) This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court (Commercial Division) Accra, dated 7th November 2013 wherein the Trial Court dismissed the case of the Plaintiffs/Appellants in its entirety and awarded costs of Gh₵5,000.00 in favour of the Defendant/Respondent.
(2) In the High Court, the Plaintiffs/Appellants, (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellants”) sought against the Defendant/ Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”) the following reliefs:
“(i) U$60,055.37 (Six Thousand, and Fifty Five U$ Dollars, and Thirty Seven Cents) or its equivalent in Ghana Cedis being the value of 271 bags of cocoa beans which the Defendants failed to secure following a forced entry into 1st Plaintiff’s warehouse on the 31st March 2010 when the Defendants were in-charge of securing the safety of the warehouse.
(ii) Interest on the said sum from the 31st March 2010 to date of payment”.
(3) The Respondent had denied liability for the stolen cocoa beans as it had not been negligent in all the circumstances of the case.
After an evaluation of the evidence, the Trial Court delivered itself as follows:-
“In conclusion, I find that the Plaintiffs were not able to prove their case and are therefore not entitled to their claim in its entirety.
Costs assessed at Gh₵5.000.00 against the Plaintiff”.
(4) Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellants have appealed to this court by notice filed on 6/2/2014 in which five
(5) grounds of appeal have been formulated as follows:-
(i) The Learned Trial Judge failed to adequately consider the case of the Plaintiffs/Appellants.
(ii) The Learned Trial Judge failed to consider the main reason for which the Defendant/Respondent were hired by the 1st Plaintiff/Appellant that is to provide security for their warehouse.
(iii) That the Trial Judge erred in holding that even though there was a valid contract to provide security the Defendants/Respondents were not responsible for the theft at 1st Plaintiff/Appellant’s warehouse.
(iv) The findings of the Learned Judge are not supported by the evidence on record.
(v) Additional grounds of appeal will be filed upon receipt of record of proceedings.
(5) It must be placed on record that at the time of adopting the written submissions of both counsel, no additional ground of appeal has been filed as proposed in the notice.
I also notice that counsel for the Appellants in the written submission proposed and did argue grounds (i) (ii) and (iii) together.