GRAMELLINI F. LLIS PA v. KPONE LOBSTER EXPORT CO. LTD

J U D G M E N T

OFOE, J.A:

INTRODUCTION

There is no doubt on the records that the parties entered into a type of oral transaction in which the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) was to supply seafoods to the respondent (who we will refer to as the plaintiff) against prepayment by the plaintiff. In respect to what the parties referred to as technical goods, while the plaintiff contended that it supplied such goods on the request of the defendant, the defendant denied any such engagement with the plaintiff and sought strict proof thereof. Details of this part of the case will unfold later in this judgment. But both parties agree that their business relationship spanned between 1998 to 2008/2009.

The plaintiff alleges that arising out of this commercial agreement it paid some monies to the defendant who did not supply the seafoods and has also refused, despite incessant requests, to refund the monies in terms of their understanding. Plaintiff makes the same allegation in respect of technical goods it claims it supplied the defendant which cost was to be paid for with seafood supplies.

It was to claim these monies paid for which no seafoods were supplied and cost of technical goods supplied for which no seafoods were supplied that the plaintiff went to the High Court on the19th August 2009 claiming as per its writ of summons, to wit:

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM

“1 Damages for breach of contract

2. An order to compel the defendant to pay the sum of 209,954.70 Euros owing on the running account

3. Alternatively, restitution of 209,954.70 Euros on the basis of the defendant’s unjust enrichment in that sum

4. Special Damages

5. Interest on the sum of 209,954.70Euros at the prevailing bank commercial rare from 28 /4/2009 until date of final payment

6. Further or other reliefs as the court may deem fit and

7. Cost”.

It had judgment at the trial court in the following terms:

“I find and hold that the plaintiff has proved on a balance of probabilities that by the close of its business dealings with the defendant in January 2009, the defendant owed it the principal sum of 207,431.10 Euros. Defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of 207,431,10 Euros with interest at the Euro rate of Ecobank from 31st January 2009 to date of final payment. The plaintiff also claimed for damages and loss of profit. I find no evidence warranting the grant of these claims.

The plaintiff’s case is upheld as proved, the defence introduced in the final amend