GHACEM LIMITED VS SAMUEL YAW NYAMPONG
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, JUSTICE GIFTY AGYEI ADDO, HIGH COURT JUDGE.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Gifty Agyei Addo of the High Court entered default judgment in a commercial dispute between a cement manufacturing company and its long‑standing distributor. The relationship began in 2007 under a written distributorship agreement requiring advance payment before delivery. In 2016, relying on goodwill, the manufacturer accepted postdated cash cheques from the distributor for prepaid deliveries; the cheques were dishonoured for insufficient funds. The manufacturer repeatedly sought payment and engaged Expert Consult Limited to recover the debt. After service of process on 31 July 2018, the distributor failed to enter appearance. On 4 February 2019, the manufacturer moved ex parte under Order 10 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). Having read the processes and heard counsel, the court awarded GH¢1,114,740.69, interest at the prevailing commercial bank lending rate from February 2018, and GH¢10,000 in costs.
The Plaintiff on 23rd May, 2018, mounted this suit against the Defendant for the following reliefs endorsed on the Writ of Summons and accompanying Statement of Claim.
a. Recovery of the sum of One Million , One Thousand And Fourteen, Seven Hundred and Forty Ghana Cedis, Sixty-Nine Pesewas (GH1, 114, 740. 69); which represents monies due to Plaintiff for goods supplied to Defendant for which he purported to pay by issuing postdated cheques which were dishonoured when presented to the bank.
b. Interest on the above stated amount at the prevailing commercial rate until date of final payment.
c. Costs.
The gravamen of the Plaintiff’s claim is contained in paragraphs 4 to 15 of its Statement of Claim, a summation of which is as follows: According to the Plaintiff, sometime in 2007, the Defendant approached it and expressed interest to be a distributor of cement produced by Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff further states that a Distributorship Agreement was drawn up in respect of the Defendant’s representation to which the Defendant appended his signature, subsequent to which the Defendant became a Distributor for the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff continues that according to the terms of the Agreement entered into, the Distributor had to pay for the full cost of his order in advance to the Plaintiff before the order made by him would be sent to his place of business for distribution.
The Plaintiff states that this agreement existing between the parties had always been enforced, with the Defendant always paying for the goods in full before it was delivered to his warehouse.
According to the Plaintiff, sometime in 2016, the Defendant approached it and requested for some goods to be delivered to him on a prepaid basis, but unlike previous times where the Defendant paid the amount in full, he proposed to the Plaintiff that he would issue out to the Plaintiff some cash cheques.
The Plaintiff further states that due to the long standing business relationship existing between it and the Defendant, it agreed to the Defendant’s proposal.
The Plaintiff states that the cheques, when presented to the bank, were dishonored by reason of lack of funds in the said account.
The Plaintiff states it reported to the Defendant about the dishonoring of the cheques by his bank and the Defendant promised to rectify the problem in the shortest possible time.
The Plaintiff further states that it kept reminding the Defendant about the need to pay for the goods, which had already been deli