INFITCO COMPANY LIMITED v. FRIGO LIMITED
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- YEBOAH, JSC (PRESIDING)
- GBADEGBE, JSC
- APPAU, JSC
- MARFUL-SAU, JSC
- AMEGATCHER, JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sued for a refund over a failed contract to construct a cold store. The defendant sought to dismiss the case, claiming it was statute barred. Both the trial court and Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's application. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court found the application procedurally incompetent under Order 33, r5, of the High Court Rules. The court elaborated on the requirements for raising statute limitation pleas, underscoring the necessity for specific statutory references and factual details. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal and provided guidance on handling preliminary points of law to expedite justice efficiently.
JUDGMENT
GBADEGBE, JSC: -
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal. By its decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial High Court’s order of dismissal of an application to dismiss the action herein on a point of law. The circumstances in which the appeal arises may be stated shortly as follows. For convenience, in these proceedings, the parties shall bear the same designation that they bore in the trial court and accordingly the respondent herein shall be described simply as the plaintiff and the appellant herein as the defendant.
The plaintiff claiming that the defendant had breached its contractual undertaking to construct a cold store for him took out the writ of summons herein claiming a refund of the sum of US $250,000.00 which it considered as due out of an amount of US$ 400,000.00 which he had paid to the defendant towards the execution of the contract. In her defence to the action, the defendant averred among others that the action was statute barred. As the appeal herein turns on a process founded on the said plea, it is useful to refer to it in extenso in paragraph 11 of the statement of defence filed by the defendant to the action. By the said pleading, it was averred thus:
“The Defendant says that the Plaintiff’s claim is statute barred.”
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a reply in which he denied the said plea; the said process was filed in the registry of the trial court on June 12, 2015. Certain other steps were pursued in the matter which would be referred to in the course of this delivery in so far as they have a bearing on the issues to be resolved in the instant appeal. Since the proceedings herein is concerned with the defendant’s aforesaid application, we turn our attention at once to the said process that was filed on November 17, 2015.
The said application was heard by the trial court and dismissed; the defendant claiming to have been aggrieved with the said ruling appealed to the Court of Appeal. The defendant’s appeal suffered a dismissal and we are now faced in these proceedings with a further appeal to us.
As the parties to the proceedings herein having filed their respective statements of case and the matter adjourned for judgment, this delivery is directed towards the resolution of the questions arising for decision in the matter. Having read the record of proceedings and considered the written briefs submitted to us by the parties, the critical question that in our view comes up for consideration i