GHACEM LIMITED VS SAMUEL YAW NYAMPONG
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, JUSTICE GIFTY AGYEI ADDO, HIGH COURT JUDGE.
Areas of Law
- Commercial Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a commercial dispute between a cement producer (Plaintiff) and its distributor (Defendant). The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for non-payment of goods supplied on credit. The Defendant had initially agreed to pay via cash cheques, which were subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite reminders, the Defendant failed to settle the outstanding amount of GH₵1,114,740.69. The Plaintiff filed a suit, and the Defendant was properly served but failed to enter an appearance. The court, applying Order 10 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), entered a default judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. The court ordered the Defendant to pay the full outstanding amount, interest at the prevailing commercial bank lending rate from February 2018 until final payment, and costs of GH₵10,000.00. This case underscores the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations in commercial relationships and the consequences of failing to respond to legal proceedings.
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