DR EBENEZER DARKWA VS ENGEN GHANA LIMITED & ANOR
2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- P. BRIGHT MENSAH JA PRESIDING
- AFIA SERWAH ASARE-BOTWE JA
- CHRISTOPHER ARCHER JA
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Engen (Gh) Ltd sued Dr. Ebenezer Darkwa, initially alone but later adding Eric Bosompem, for breach of contract, seeking various damages. Darkwa counterclaimed, citing collusion and fraud. The High Court favored Darkwa, dismissing Engen's claims. Engen appealed, and the appellate court reviewed the entire evidence, finding inconsistencies in Engen's claims and affirming collusion and wrongful takeover by Engen. The appeal succeeded, reversing the High Court's decision, awarding general damages for trespass and fraud to Darkwa, and costs against Engen.
BRIGHT MENSAH JA
The instant appeal is against the judgment of the High Court, Accra delivered 20/06/2022, in a case in which the plaintiff, Engen (Gh) Ltd had sued, claiming the under listed judicial reliefs:
1. General damages for breach of contract;
2. Special damages for breach of contract in the sum of
Ghc1,190,838.66;
3. Interest on damages at the prevailing commercial rate;
4. Cost;
and
5. Any other relief the honourable court may deem fit.
The impugned judgment, the subject of the instant appeal, appears on pp 130-193 Vol. 2 of the record of appeal [roa].
The 1st defendant, Dr. Ebenezer Darkwa being dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, has mounted the current appeal on a number of grounds which we shall discuss in detail in this judgment as we proceed along.
1st defendant’s defence & counterclaim:
We need to put it on record that the plaintiff initially mounted the action against only Dr. Ebenezer Darkwa, as the defendant to the suit. Upon being served with the plaintiff’s writ, the defendant entered appearance and filed his defence by which he denied substantially, the plaintiff’s claim. Dr. Darkwa in his statement of defence accused the plaintiff of colluding with Eric Bosompem [his brother] to defraud him. Averring fraud in paragraphs 11-13 of the statement of defence, the defendant gave particulars of the fraud as follows:
Particulars of Fraud
i. The plaintiff supplied goods to Eric Bosompem beyond the
agreed limit or cut off point without the consent of the defend-
ant.
ii. The plaintiff signed an MOU with Eric Bosompem without the
consent of the plaintiff.
iii. The station was taken over by the plaintiff long before the MOU
was executed. And the MOU is seen as an afterthought.
iv. In spite of the fact that Eric Bosompem issued dud cheques to
the plaintiff it went ahead to supply him with goods.
The defendant then proceeded to counterclaim against the plaintiff as follows:
a. A declaration by the court that both Eric Bosompim and the plaintiff
committed fraud on the defendant.
b. General damages for fraud against the plaintiff and Eric Bosompem.
c. A declaration by the court that the plaintiff by taking over the Tafo
filing station without a court order and or recourse to the mortgage
agreement made by the parties herein was unlawful.
d. A declaration by the court that all credit sales to Eric Bosompem
above the limit agreed upon by the parties shall be the liability of
the plaintiff and E