ELAND INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LTD VS PRESTEA SANKOFAGOLD LTD & ANOR
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JEROME NOBLE- NKRUMAH
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiff pursued reliefs for repayment and damages from Defendants under a commercial agreement involving a $400,000 revolving credit and a gold supply contract. Defendants counterclaimed, disputing the debt and the nature of the agreement. The court held that the commercial agreement, despite missing seals, was intended as a deed, therefore, not statute-barred. The court ordered 1st Defendant to repay $400,000 to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff to pay 1st Defendant $100,657.78 for the fifth gold shipment. Interest was calculated based on the USD rate, and costs were awarded against Defendants. General damages were denied.
Plaintiff per its writ of summons and Statement of claim claims against the Defendants for the following reliefs:
i. The repayment of the sum of USD 484, 927.12 which is due, owing, and unpaid to the plaintiff by the defendant.
ii. Interest on [i] above at the agreed rate of 18% from August 2004 till the date of final payment.
iii. General damages for breach of the Commercial Agreement.
iv. Costs inclusive of reasonable attorney fees incurred herein.
v. Such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
The 1st Defendant filed a statement of defence on the 7/5/14, which it later amended on 19/5/15, and counterclaimed as follows:
1. Recovery of the amount of $130, 299.43 owed by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant on the 5th shipment of gold [shipment No. 178].
2. Costs including solicitors fees.
On the 15/5/14, the 2nd Defendant also filed a defence.
The parties having failed to settle, the following issues were set down for trial:
1. Whether or not the Plaintiff's action is statute barred.
2. Whether or not the action is premature.
3. Whether or not the 1st Defendant's reply to Plaintiff's letter dated October 2013 is an admission of indebtedness.
4. Whether or not the 2nd Defendant guaranteed the payment of the facility.
5. Whether or not the 1st Defendant entered into an agreement to supply gold and if so, how much was supplied.
6. Whether or not the 1st Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff and if so, how much.
7. What is the effect of the correspondence exchanged between the parties prior to the institution of this action.
8. Whether or not the Plaintiff served demand notices on the second defendant.
9. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to its claim.
Briefly put, the Plaintiff's case is that by a ‘Deed signed between’ the Plaintiff company and 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant on April 4, 2002, the Plaintiff ‘agreed to advance to the 1st Defendant a revolving credit facility of four hundred thousand United States Dollars ($400, 000.00)’ for the rehabilitation of the 1st Defendant's plant and operations in one component, while the other component of said agreement was for the 1st Defendant to make shipments of gold totaling 480 kilograms to the Plaintiff.
It is the Plaintiff's case that it completed disbursement of said facility to the 1st Defendant through the 2nd Defendant on or about May 2003, and that following the 1st Defendant's refusal to repay the facility within time and a disagreement