IZONE GHANA LTD v. MR. GEORGE APPIAH KUBI

On or about the 4th of February, 2019, the Plaintiff herein, a limited liability company

incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Ghana to engage in the business of

selling, marketing and distribution of MTN products and services throughout the

Greater Accra Region took out the instant writ against the Defendant, a Ghanaian

businessman, trading under the name and style of Giant Media Enterprise for the

following reliefs;-

“(a) An order directing the Defendant to pay his outstanding debt of GH¢

100, 130.76 or in the alternative, an order for the enforcement of the Deed of

Assignment entered into on the 27th February, 2018

(b). Interest on the GH¢100, 130.76 from 2014 to date of final

payment at the prevailing commercial rate

(c). Cost including costs of litigation

(d). Any other order this Honorable Court may deem fit.

The Plaintiff supported his endorsement with an eighteen (18) paragraph

Statement of Claim, part of which I reproduced hereunder in no special order;-

3. The Plaintiff avers that somewhere in July 2011, the Defendant entered into a

sales arrangement with the Plaintiff as one of the Plaintiff's sub-dealer.

4. The Plaintiff further avers that under this contract, the Defendant was to

purchase MTN products from the Plaintiff and to present cheques after each

transaction.

5. The Plaintiff avers that the practice flowing from the agreement was to the

effect that the Defendant issued cheques for payment of goods requested and

supplied on the same day.

6. The Plaintiff further avers that the parties abided by the terms of their contract

until May 2014.

7. The Plaintiff avers that Defendant breached his agreement with the Plaintiff

between the period of May 2014 and September 2014 when the Defendant

presented eight cheques to the Plaintiff for goods requested and delivered but

all of the cheques were dishonoured.

8. The Plaintiff avers that the total value of cheques returned amounted to GH¢

182,601 and that the Plaintiff was subsequently forced to use Defendant’s

incentives for the months of May, June, August and September in 2014 to defray

part of the debt. He also made some additional cash payments in this same

timeframe.

9. The Plaintiff further avers that despite the Defendant's indebtedness to

Plaintiff, it continued trading with the Defendant in the belief that the

Defendant would pay his debt as and when he had some money while still in

business.

12. The Plaintiff avers that after the paymen