JAMES KOFI SASE & 3 ORS v. THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY & 2 ORS
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal reviewed the decision of the High Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the recovery of Gh¢330,000 for seized wood. The defendants argued that there were triable issues related to the legality of the chain sawn lumber that were not appropriately considered. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, endorsing the High Court's decision but deducted Gh¢38,400 accounted for from the sale of the lumber.
JUDGMENT
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.:
This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court, Accra, dated 18th of February, 2018. In the said ruling, the High Court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs for the recovery of the sum of three hundred and thirty Ghana cedis (Gh¢330,000) from the defendants with interest at the prevailing bank rate.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the following ground:
“The learned trial Judge erred when he entered summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs when the 1st co-defendant/appellant had filed a statement of defence indicating triable issues”
The reliefs sought from the Court of Appeal are:
a. That the entire summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs be set aside.
b. That the learned trial Judge be ordered to conduct a full trial of the case.
The facts leading to the judgment in contention are as follows:
The plaintiffs/respondents herein referred to as plaintiffs claim against the defendants/appellants herein referred to as defendants.
i. Recovery of 13,200 pieces of mixed white wood or its value Gh¢330,000.
ii. Damages of Gh¢5,000.00 per day per truck from the 8th August, 2011 to date of final release i.e. 15th November, 2011.
iii. Full costs recovery including legal fees.
In the 17-paragraph amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs averred that, they are owners and transporters of about ten (10) trucks of lumber. That sometime in August, 2011, the plaintiffs were transporting mixed white wood from Techiman to Burkina Faso. The plaintiffs averred further that, it obtained the necessary permit from the Timber Industry Development Division after paying the required commission of 1.5%.
On reaching Hamile, the defendant seized the plaintiffs’ trucks, confiscated them and charged them before the District Court, Wa. The District Court, Wa, ordered the plaintiffs’ trucks to be released to them because the plaintiffs had already paid the penalty. The plaintiffs were thus released. The plaintiffs continued that in spite of the order of the District Court, the defendant has failed and or refused to release the trucks to the plaintiffs even though the plaintiffs’ drivers were later released. It is the case of the plaintiffs that despite several demands including one from their counsel, the defendant has failed and refused to obey the court’s order to release the trucks and timber to them. They concluded that, upon the institu