Grimaldi Lines and Anor. v. Georgina Coleman
July 17, 2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- P. K. Gyaesayor, J.A. (Presiding)
- A. Lovelace-Johnson, J.A.
- I.O. Tanko Amadu, J.A.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Maritime Law
- Contract Law
July 17, 2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Top Shares Ventures, a Ghana-based importer owned by a sole proprietress, sued Grimaldi Ghana Limited and its agent over a delayed sea carriage of assorted biscuits from the United Kingdom. The parties anticipated a fourteen-day transit from London to Tema due to the perishable nature of the goods, but the vessel arrived on 16 August 2011, by which time some biscuits had expired and others were close to expiry. The High Court found a breach and awarded refunds, damages, costs, and interest. On appeal filed in November 2014, the carriers raised multiple grounds, but the Court of Appeal struck out grounds (i)–(vii) for violating C.I. 19 and considered only the omnibus ground. Evaluating the evidence, the Court replaced the £15,184 valuation with USD 8,478.04 based on the importer’s earlier Customs Declaration, and affirmed all other awards and findings, thus allowing the appeal only in part.
TANKO AMADU J. A(1) In the High Court (Commercial Division) Accra, the Respondent herein (as Plaintiff) claimed against the Appellants (as Defendants) the following reliefs: -“(i)An order compelling the Defendant to refund to the Plaintiff £34, 858. 00 or its Cedi equivalent being the cost of assorted biscuits imported by the Plaintiff to Ghana(ii) Interest at the prevailing Commercial Bank Rate.
iii) General damages for breach of contract”.
According to the Plaintiff, she contracted the 2nd Defendant whose agent is the 1st Defendant to ship a consignment of biscuits from the United Kingdom to Ghana.
Being perishable, it was envisaged by the contract that the period of sail should not exceed fourteen (14) days whereupon the parties agreed that the 2nd Defendant’s vessel would sail from London on 24/5/2011 and arrive Tema on 7/6/2011. As it turned out, the 2nd Defendant’s vessel arrived on 16/8/2011 by which date the Plaintiff’s biscuit consignment had expired.
Upon notice to the 1st Defendant as agents of the 2nd Defendant about the state of the consignment they eventually delivered, the 1st Defendant was alleged to have demonstrated indifference hence Plaintiff’s action for recovery of the value of the consignment as per the endorsement in the writ of summons.
In her statement of defence, the 2nd Defendant averred that after the completion of the contract with the Plaintiff, the assigned carriage vessel developed technical difficulties which resulted in its return to the port of Antwerp for repairs.
The 2nd Defendant further averred that by shipping practice, delivery dates are not ascertained due to weather uncertainties and that arrival dates are therefore estimated.
The 2nd Defendant further averred that when it was notified about the Plaintiff’s loss, they repudiated the terms of the contract for affreightment.
In specific denial to the Plaintiff’s averment that she took a loan to facilitate the import of the biscuits and that she was servicing the said loan together with huge interest, the 2nd Defendant averred that while the cargo to be carried was biscuits, they challenged the Plaintiff to the proof of the other averments.