E.M. K. ABORMEGAH v. TOTAL PETROLEUM (GHANA) LTD.
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARIAMA OWUSU J.A (PRESIDING)
- K. N. ADUAMA OSEI J.A
- I.O. TANKO AMADU J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, Evans Agbormegah, successfully sought declaratory reliefs and financial compensation from Mobil Oil Ghana Limited for wrongful termination of his dealership agreement in the High Court. Mobil Oil appealed, arguing errors in law and the sufficiency of evidence. The Court of Appeal found no fault in the High Court's finding but reduced the general damages awarded to the Plaintiff, citing unjustifiable quantum of the award. The ruling emphasized the need for clear detailing of grounds in appeals alleging legal error and the importance of sufficient evidence to support trial court findings.
TANKO AMADU J.A
(1) This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court (Fast Track Division) Accra, dated 28th February, 2013 wherein the Plaintiff/Respondent, (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”) obtained judgment against the Defendant/ Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”), while the counterclaim set up by the Appellant was dismissed.
(2) In the High Court, the Respondent had sought against the Appellant two declaratory reliefs as follows:-
(i) A Declaration that the terms of the main agreement (Dealer
Agreement) between Mobil Oil Ghana Limited (the Defendant herein) and Evans Agbormegah (the Plaintiff herein) the termination of the services of the Plaintiff by the Defendant was without due process and was unlawful, void and of no effect (or in the alternative).
(ii) A Declaration that a subsisting agreement between the said
two (2) to parties with specific reference to retiring age did not adversely affect the Plaintiff and therefore the Defendant’s termination of the services of the Plaintiff while he had not attained the age of 65 or 67 years was improper unlawful, void and of no effect.
(3) The Respondent further sought a number of specific monetary reliefs against the Appellant totalling ₵1,080,359.053.00 together with interest thereon from the dates the respect claims were unlawfully deducted, withheld, or forfeited by the Respondent till date of final judgment.
(4) In their counterclaim, the Appellant sought reliefs against the Respondent as follows:-
“a) An order for payment of the sum of ₵59,825.805.00 (Eight Five
million, Eight Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Five Cedis (sic) being balance due and owing as at September 30,2003, on account of petroleum products supplied to Plaintiff by Defendant the payment of which Plaintiff has failed to make good, several demand notices notwithstanding.
b) Interest on the said sum of ₵59,825,805 (Eighty Five Million,
Eight Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Five Cedis) (sic) at the current commercial bank lending rate from 1st October, 2003 up to and inclusive of the date of final payment.
c) Costs”.
(5) In delivering himself, the Learned Trial Judge entered judgment for the Respondent on substantially all the reliefs sought which included an award in general damages Gh₵200,000.00 for wrongful termination of the Respondent’s services as well as costs of Ghc30,000.000 against the Appellant. The Trial Court dismissed in entirety, Ap