GH - GOLDEN TRADE S.R.L. vs SAHARA ROYAL GOLD REFINERY LTD.

INTRODUCTION

The Plaintiff a Limited Liability Company incorporated under the laws of Italy and which deals in precious minerals entered into a business relationship with the Defendant, a Ghanaian company engaged in the mining and export of mineral products.

The parties entered into an agreement and executed an AU Gold Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 28th April, 2018 for the supply of gold by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s case is that the parties successfully completed the initial transaction subsequent to which the Plaintiff transferred another sum of US$166, 448. 48 to Defendant but it has failed to deliver the said gold to Plaintiff after several demands which triggered the instant suit.

The Defendant’s defence is that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the said claim as the money received was part payment for gold already supplied and the rest of the money was given to small-scale miners who were to mine gold for Defendant for shipment to Plaintiff.

That the Government of Ghana’s moratorium on small-scale miners frustrated the supply of gold to Plaintiff and hence the Plaintiff is not entitled to its claim.

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE The Plaintiff’s case is that it executed an AU Gold Sale and Purchase Agreement with the Defendant dated 28th April, 2018 and tendered Exhibit “A”. That per the terms of the agreement between the parties the Defendant was to supply 2kg per week of gold in the form of bars with 91. 66% plus purity of 22 cart fineness.

According to the Plaintiff following some variations to the contract, the first transaction of which an amount of US$169, 212. 76 was invoiced was successfully completed between the parties.

In support of this the Plaintiff tendered Exhibit “B” Series being evidence of transfers for the said payment by Plaintiff to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff averred that the Defendant unilaterally sent to it an extra gold in addition to the initial 2kg of gold which the Plaintiff paid for and that it paid the Defendant US$82, 083. 82 for that extra 2kg gold.

That there was never any agreement or understanding between the parties for any money to be given to small-scale miners for their operations before gold could be supplied Plaintiff by the Defendant.

In the aftermath of this first transaction, the Plaintiff stated it received an invoice of US$166, 448. 48 from the Defendant for the supply of the next batch of 4. 003kg of gold to it.

In support of this the Plaintiff tendered Exhibit “C” Serie