FIRST NEW AGE COMPANY LIMITED v. ISAAC KWABENA BOAHEN & 3 ORS
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
- Civil Procedure
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a Plaintiff Company seeking recovery of the value of lost goods, damages for breach of contract, and loss of profit from multiple Defendants. The court found that while the Plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the lost goods, the claims for loss of profit and breach of contract against the 1st and 3rd Defendants were denied. The court ruled that the Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim for loss of profit. Additionally, the court determined that there was no contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the 1st and 3rd Defendants, who were acting as agents for the 4th Defendant. The case highlights the importance of providing adequate evidence for claims of loss of profit and the necessity of establishing a direct contractual relationship for breach of contract claims.
JUDGMENT
By a writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 28/04/2015, the Plaintiff Company sought the reliefs as set down below:
An order for the recovery of the sum of Twenty-five Thousand, Three Hundred and Ten Ghana Cedis (GH¢25,310.00) being the value of assorted Samsung mobile telephones that the Plaintiff delivered to 1st and 4th Defendants to transport to Sunyani.
Interest on the said amount from March 26, 2015 until date of final payment.
Damages for breach of contract.
Loss of profit.
Costs incidental to this suit.
Such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit.
The said writ of summons and statement of claim were duly served on the 1st and 3rd Defendants on 29/04/2015 and 06/05/2015 respectively, but they failed to enter appearance. On an ex-parte application filed by counsel for the Plaintiff on 1/10/2015, an interlocutory judgment was entered against them in respect of relieves (3) and(4), and final judgment in respect of reliefs (1) and (2), pursuant to Order 13 rules 1(1), 2 and 5 of C.I. 47.
Subsequently, a hearing notice was served on the 1st and 3rd Defendants for assessment of damages and other consequential matters to be gone into. Thus, on 28/10/2015, the Managing Director of the Plaintiff Company mounted the witness box to give evidence. He described the procedure for dispatching the Plaintiff 's packages , through the 4th Defendant Drivers Union and how the packages are received at the designation, i.e. Sunyani. According to him, a package consisting of 29 pieces of assorted brand new Samsung Mobile phone handsets, one empty I- phone 5s box and a remote control were dispatched through a driver of the 4th Defendant Union. The particulars of the driver and his vehicle were given to the Plaintiff after payment of the requisite fees, but the package was never delivered to the Plaintiffs' agent in Sunyani. It could also not be traced by the Defendants. The witness gave the value of the assorted mobile phones as GH¢25,310.00 and GH¢ 9,500.00 as the loss of profit. Concluding, the witness said the Plaintiff has been unable to sell the I-phone 5s without the box because prospective buyers think it is a used phone.
The 1st and 3rd Defendants were given an opportunity to cross-examine the Plaintiff's representative.
They did not challenge the fact that the parcel which was received by the 4th Defendant was never delivered to the intended recipient. They also conceded that the 4th Defendant agreed to pay for the lost