HULLBLYTH (GH. LTD) & ORS v. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD.
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ASARE KORANG, J.A
- OFOE, J.A
- ACQUAYE, J.A
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Commercial Law
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiffs sued the defendant for the value of 26 containers and demurrage after the latter failed to return them. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the defendant appealed, arguing discrepancies in the waybills and container identification. The appellate court scrutinized the evidence, noting inconsistencies in matching container numbers with waybills. Only six containers matched sufficiently, leading the court to award nominal damages of $18,000. The appellate court also denied the demurrage claim due to the lack of a clear agreement and required the plaintiffs to refund $70,039.12 to the defendant, considering prior payments during an appeal stay.
J U D G M E N T
OFOE,J.A.: After initial uncertainties about the exact amount and particulars of their claim the plaintiff and co-plaintiffs/respondents finally settled and sued the defendant/appellant, Anglo gold Ashanti for:
“a. An order for the recovery of the sum of US$595,836.79 less US$88,039.12 paid by the defendant and received by the co-plaintiff for the value of the containers plus interest being the outstanding demurrage charges due and payable as at the date 15th February 1999 when the containers were declared lost by the co plaintiff in accordance with the custom in the shipping industry.
b. Interest on the amount claimed in (a) with effect from the 15th day of February 1999 at the rate of 4% per annum until the date of judgment
c. Cost”
In this appeal the parties would be referred to as appellant and respondents, which in any case they are in this court. The substance of the case before us is simply the alleged failure of the appellant to return containers that they took delivery of from the respondents. The total claim of the respondents as endorsed on their writ of summons is therefore meant to be the total value of the containers and demurrage incurred as a result of appellant’s failure to return the containers. After reading the appeal records we found paragraph 5 and 6 of the respondents’ statement of claim very critical in the determination of this appeal. Critical not only because these paragraphs provide the necessary particulars of respondents claim but also defines the boundaries of the trial, the appellant having denied the said paragraphs. The said paragraphs provide:
“5. The co-plaintiff says that between June 1995 and February 1998 the co-plaintiff delivered over twenty six (26) shipping containers to the defendant through the plaintiff as its agent in Ghana and were covered by Waybills.
6. The co-plaintiff says that the container bear numbers and are of different sizes. The marks or description of the container are as follows:
ACLU 2718280 WLNU 4140939
TEXU 2203238 TEXU 2345177
TEXU 2886944 GSTU 4368531
TEXU 3452390 TEXU 2048846
CRXU 2498930 PRSU 2009916
ALMU 1020390 ALMU 1020471
ALMU 1020569 ALMU 1020620
ALMU 1021077 ALRU 6263662
ALRU 8177835 TEXU 2056630
TEXU 2307269 TEXU 2882503
TEXU 3051674 TEXU 3313040
TPHU 6647480 GCEU 4306910
WLNU 4550050 TOLU 4566575
As earlier stated the appellant’s statement of defence denies these claims of the respondent and by that they put the respondents to proving not only