GHANA PORTS AND HARBOURS AUTHORITY v. ISSOUFOU

JUDGMENT OF ADJABENG J.A.

The action giving rise to this appeal was commenced on 27 March 1981 in the name of “ETS Kabore Issoufou” as the plaintiff. The plaintiff was described in the amended statement of claim as "a company incorporated in Burkina Faso." Originally, the plaintiff, the respondent herein, sued the erstwhile Ghana Ports Authority and Ghana Cargo Handling Co. Ltd. jointly and severally. The claim was "for the value of 1,412 bags of rice belonging to the plaintiff which were lost while in the custody of the defendants". This claim was subsequently amended on a number of occasions, and the final indorsement on the writ of summons reads as follows:

“(i) $283,507.94 being the value of 3,403 bags of rice at $36.54 per bag, i.e. ¢52,732.476 (inclusive of 16% interest).

(ii) Customs duty, handling charges, ports rents and clearing agents fees together with 26% interest on 3,403 bags of rice paid but undelivered - ¢50,731.64."

[p.504]

The Ghana Ports Authority was at the time responsible for the administration of the Port of Tema, among others, and the Ghana Cargo Handling Co. Ltd. was responsible for the off-loading and handling of imported goods at the said port. In June 1986, while this suit was pending, the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority Law, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 160), was passed merging these two bodies and the Takoradi Lighterage Co. Ltd. into one body corporate to be known as the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority. The title of the suit was therefore amended, and thus the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority became the sole defendant in the action.

The brief facts of this case are that sometime in the early part of 1980, one Kabore Issoufou, a citizen of Burkina Faso resident in Ouagadougou, imported a quantity of rice from Pakistan through the Port of Tema. 54,323 bags of the rice had been shipped but only 53,800 bags were landed and taken into the sheds of the defendants at the Tema Port. The two original defendants who handled the consignment failed to deliver to the plaintiff the said 53,800 bags of the rice after the necessary payments had been made to them. The rice they delivered was short by 1,412 bags. As the defendants could not offer any satisfactory explanation as to why the rice should have been short-delivered, this action was taken against them.

The defendants denied liability. Firstly, they denied that the plaintiff was an incorporated company. They also put the blame for the short delivery on each other. Later, however