ESSMMC SHIPPING CO. LTD. v. CUSTOMS EXCISE & PREVENTIVE SERVICE
2004
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- GBADEGBE, JA, PRESIDING
- PIESARE, JA.
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Tort Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2004
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Court of Appeal judgment, authored by Justice N. S. Gbadegbe, addresses the lawfulness of the Ghana Customs and Excise Commissioner’s seizure and subsequent processing into animal feed of 21,620 cartons of fish imported by the respondent under a warehousing arrangement. The High Court in Accra had found the seizure unlawful, awarded damages, and directed the importer to pay customs duties. On appeal and cross‑appeal, the court held that Exhibit M, the seizure notice, failed to state the statutory basis under NRCD 114 and that section 84 could only be invoked in relation to an offence under section 49, rendering the seizure and later re‑export order ultra vires. The court dismissed the appellant’s grounds, substituted damages of US$259,223.80 with interest at the prevailing U.S. bank rate from 1 June 1990, affirmed that duties were payable as of the seizure date without interest, and dismissed the cross‑appeal.
GBADEGBE, JA:
Read the following judgment of the Court.
In this appeal, which arises from the decision of the High Court, Accra upholding the claim of the respondent, the questions which the court has to decide turn on the liability of the appellant regarding the seizure and/or confiscation of the respondent’s fish, the award of damages, and the order that the respondent pays custom duties on the fish, the subject matter of the action herein.
In the court below, the learned trial judge accepted the respondent’s case that the conduct of the appellant in ordering the seizure of the fish and subsequently dealing with it in a manner inconsistent with the rights of the owner was unlawful and consequently made an award in her favour in damages but directed that the respondent pays the appropriate custom duties on the fish.
The said decision has been appealed to this court by both parties to the action, that of the respondent, however, being a cross appeal.
The issues between the appellant and the respondent are set out in their respective pleadings.
By his plaint, the respondent claimed special damages and interest for the wrongful seizure of 21,620 cartons of fish by the appellant.
It was averred on her behalf that in October 1989, she imported into the country a large quantity of fish worth US $657,423.47.
When the consignment arrived, the parties herein entered into an agreement whereby the entire quantity was warehoused after the respondent had paid the requisite deposit and entered into a bond for the payment of the appropriate duties thereon.
By this arrangement, the duties were to be paid on the fish when and as it was removed from the warehouse.
In the course of this dealing between the parties, the appellant seized 21,620 cartons of the fish and dealt with same without reference to the respondent.
The evidence which is available from the record alleges that on the instructions of the Commissioner, the entire quantity was processed into animal feed.
As a result of this, the respondent mounted the action herein in the court below seeking the reliefs hereinbefore mentioned.
In answer to the claim, the appellant justified its conduct by relying on the exercise of statutory authority.
In particular, it was asserted on its behalf in paragraph 10 of the statement of defence that the respondent had breached the terms and conditions relating to the warehousing and further that the expiry date of the fish having elapsed, there was no option left to