HEXAGON IM – UND EXPORT GMBH CO. KG vs NELSON ADJEI MANYAH (DECEASED)

According to the Statement of Claim attached to the Writ of Summons, Plaintiff is alleged to have entered into a contract with the original Defendant; Nelson Adjei Manyah (now deceased) Trading under the Name and Style of Pamari Enterprise for the supply of 6,056 cartons of ceramic ware at a total cost of One Hundred Ten Thousand and Seventy-Nine United States Dollars, Fifty-Six Cents (US$110,079.56).

That per the Terms of Sale, payment for the goods was due after One Hundred Twenty (120) days from the date of shipment.

Although the goods were duly shipped by Plaintiff to the original Defendant, the latter has only paid Ten Thousand and Seventy-Nine United States Dollars, Fifty-Six Cents (US$10,079.56) and has failed to fully settle his indebtedness of One Hundred Thousand, United States Dollars (US$100,000.00) to Plaintiff despite repeated demands.

Plaintiff was thus compelled to institute the instant suit against the original Defendant; Nelson Adjei Manyah (now deceased) Trading under the Name and Style of Pamari Enterprise and prayed the Court for the following reliefs:

a. Recovery of the sum of One Hundred Thousand, United States Dollars (US$100,000.00);

b. Interest on the sum of One Hundred Thousand, United States Dollars (US$100,000.00) at the prevailing interest rate from 22nd January, 2014 till the date of final payment;

c. Damages for breach of contract;

d. Costs.

During the pendency of the suit, the original Defendant (Nelson Adjei Manyah) died and upon an application by the Plaintiff, the original Defendant was subsequently substituted by Stanley Manyah (as 1st Defendant) and Elaine Baaba Adjei Manyah (as 2nd Defendant); the Customary Successor and Wife respectively of the Deceased.

The Substituted Defendants on 14th October, 2021 caused their Lawyer to enter Conditional Appearance on their behalf.

On 3rd November 2021, the 2nd Substituted Defendant filed a Statement of Defence to which Plaintiff on 16th November, 2021 filed a reply.

There is however no indication from the records that the 1st Substituted Defendant filed a Statement of Defence.

Upon failure of Pre-Trial Settlement Conference, the Pre-Trial Judge set down the following issues to be determined by the Trial Court:

1. Whether or not the Defendants are indebted to the Plaintiff for goods supplied.

2. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the total cost of the goods.

3. Whether or not the Defendants are in breach of the contract.

4. Whether or not