EASTERN ALLOYS COMPANY LIMITED v. SILVERSTAR AUTO LIMITED
2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AKUFFO (MS), CJ (PRESIDING)
- ANSAH, JSC
- ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC
- YEBOAH, JSC
- BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this Ghana Supreme Court decision, Eastern Alloys Company Limited appealed after the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Courts striking out of its 2014 suit against Silver Star Auto Ltd, a Mercedes-Benz dealer and service provider. The earlier 2007 workshop-bill litigation (RPC/268/07) between the same parties had ended with a pre-trial consent judgment in January 2008, at a time when Eastern Alloys knew of defects and had filed a counterclaim alleging losses arising from missing fixtures and downtime. The 2014 suit sought damages for breach of implied warranty of fitness and replacement value for 25 Actros trucks. Applying Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b),(d) of C.I. 47 and the Henderson v. Henderson abuse-of-process doctrine, the Supreme Court found that the matters could and should have been pursued in the earlier litigation; the consent judgment was as binding as a post-trial judgment, no special or vitiating circumstances were shown, and allowing the fresh suit would oppress successive litigation. The appeal was dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC:-
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant (Appellant), Eastern Alloys Company, a limited liability company, incorporated under the laws of Ghana, primarily engaged in the processing and production of aluminum products and also engaged in haulage, was a defendant in an earlier suit numbered RPC/268/07, before the High Court (Commercial Division), Accra; whilst the Defendant/Respondent/Respondent (Respondent) Silver Star Auto Ltd, a limited liability company, incorporated under the laws of Ghana, engaged in the sale and servicing of Mercedes-Benz vehicles and spare parts, was the plaintiff in the said suit.
The claim in the earlier suit was for an outstanding balance of money, owed by the appellant, in respect of workshop services rendered by the respondent on Benz trucks, it sold to the appellant. The appellant filed a defence and counterclaim. The dispute was settled at the pre-trial settlement stage and a consent judgment was duly entered on 30 January 2008.
On 17 April 2014, the appellant issued a writ of summons with a statement of claim in relation to 25 units of Mercedes Benz Actros trucks claiming general damages from the respondent for breach of implied warranty of fitness, replacement value of affected trucks and costs.
The respondent filed a statement of defence to the action and then brought an application under Order 11 rule 18(1) (b) (d) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, (C.I. 47), on grounds inter alia that the action was an abuse of process, as the matters raised in the appellant’s statement of claim were raised as a defence in the earlier suit. The respondent also raised an additional issue that the appellant’s action was caught by the Limitation Act, 1972, (NRCD54).
The High Court upheld the objection and struck out the suit on 29 May 2015 and this ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in their judgment dated 14 July 2016. Their Lordships at the Court of Appeal were of the view that: “the main issue of contention is a question of fact whether or not as at the time of the earlier judgment the cause of action which is the alleged defects in the gear boxes of trucks had accrued. If it had but the appellant failed to raise the issue in its counterclaim but waited until 2014 to institute action, then the contention that it constitutes piece meal litigation and abuse of process may be maintainable.”
This is an appeal filed on 14 July 2016 against the judgment of the Court