GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY v. SIC INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- KORBIEH J.A. (PRESIDING)
- SOWAH J.A
- KWOFIE J.A.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case is an appeal from the 16th June 2016 judgment of the High Court (Commercial Division) Accra, where plaintiffs sought and were awarded bond security of GH¢5 million plus interest and costs against the defendant, based on a Warehouse Bond guaranteeing payment of revenue lost due to non-payment of customs & excise duties on warehoused goods. The defendant neither appeared in court nor complied with procedural requirements, resulting in judgment against them. They appealed, contending procedural unfairness and questioning conditions of the bond's liability. The appellate court found procedural fairness, citing plaintiffs' obligation to notify and proving compliance with the bond failed. The appellate court, citing previous cases and statutes, stressed that liability periods and bond terms were critical and ruled that the trial judge erred in holding the defendant liable. The appeal succeeded, setting aside the lower court’s judgment.
JUDGMENT
SOWAH, J.A.:
BACKGROUND FACTS
This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court (Commercial Division) Accra dated 16th June 2016.
The plaintiffs’ writ of summons sought the following reliefs from the defendant:
i. Payment of the bond security of Gh¢5,000,000.00
ii. Interest on (i) above at the prevailing commercial bank rate from the date of notice until date of final payment
iii. Costs
The basis of the claim was a Warehouse Bond issued by the defendant company guaranteeing payment of all revenue lost arising from non-payment of customs and excise duties on goods warehoused under bond by Novel Commodities Ghana Ltd. The Bond security was for GH¢5 million and was for the period 10th April 2013 to 9th April 2014.
In a statement of defence, the defendant though admitting the facts pertaining to the issuance of the Bond and her obligations thereunder denied that there was any justification for the formal demand on her for the bond security. She called for strict proof of the purported loss, omission, default or breach under the bond.
A witness statement was duly filed by the plaintiff's representative, one Samuel Bentil together with the documents the plaintiff intended to rely on at the trial [see pages 24-70 of the record]. Mr. Bentil attended court on 5th April 2016 to testify but neither the defendant nor her counsel was present to cross-examine him. Plaintiff thereupon closed its case and the court adjourned the case for judgment.
In the judgment, the learned trial judge noted that notwithstanding several notices of scheduled dates for trial evidenced by numerous affidavits of service on the docket, neither the defendant nor its counsel was in court to contest the case. The trial judge also noted that the defendant had failed to comply with case management orders to file its witness statement and pre-trial check list; hence the statement of defence filed by the defendant had been struck out in accordance with order 32 rule 7A of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, C.I. 47. This was on 29th February 2016 as per court notes at page 72 of the record.
In the view of the learned trial judge, the only triable issue in the circumstance was whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs as endorsed on the writ of summons.
Her conclusion after looking at the applicable law and the evidence on record was that she was satisfied that the plaintiffs' action should succeed. She therefore entered judgment for the plaintiff