HUNGAROTEX FOREIGN TRADING CO. v. BOATENG

JUDGMENT OF AMUA-SEKYI J.A.

Some time in 1979 the defendant, a Ghanaian national, entered into a contract in Hungary with the plaintiffs, a state corporation of the government of Hungary, for the supply of textile fabrics valued at US $110,000 under 180 days' credit terms. The textile fabrics were duly supplied to the defendant who accepted same. He made a part-payment of US $23,750 and issued three cheques for the balance of $86,250. The cheques having been dishonoured by the foreign bankers of the defendant, the plaintiffs fell on his English guarantors, Messrs Bharwaneys Ltd., who turned out to be worth nothing. They then approached the defendant in Ghana for their money. He asked for accommodation. The plaintiffs agreed, and on 9 August 1982 entered into an agreement with him for the payment of the balance by monthly instalments over a period of eleven months. Needless to say, the defendant did not pay a single cent. Solicitors were instructed to demand the payment of the debt. When this was done, his solicitors, by a letter dated 22 May 1984, offered to pay $5,000 by the month ending June 1984 and thereafter $1,000 each month. The letter ended with these words: "I trust that Dr. Djamson [the plaintiffs’ attorney] will sympathetically give my client this last chance to test his bona fides." A second letter dated 11 June 1984 offered to raise the monthly instalments to $2,000 and to pay not less than $20,000 by 31 December 1984. Unimpressed, the plaintiffs issued their writ.

The writ of summons and the statement of claim were filed together on 6 July 1984. Appearance was entered for the defendant on 8 August 1984. Two days later, the plaintiffs took out a summons for judgment. On the return date, that is 28 August 1984, counsel for the parties asked the court to adjourn the hearing to 12 September 1984. On 7 September 1984 the defendant filed a so-called defence in paragraph 8 of which he averred as follows:

"8. The defendant in answer to the whole of the claim admits liability for the balance due and owing, but contends that even though the money of account is US dollars the mode of payment should be Ghana cedis at the current rate of exchange."

He backed this up with an affidavit in "opposition" to the summons for judgment in paragraph 9 of which he said he was submitting to [p.615] judgment for $86,250 with interest at five and a half per cent. He asked that he be permitted to pay the debt by an immediate payment of $5,000 and monthly payment