JEBSEN & JESSEN (GMBH & CO) KG v. DELIMAN OIL CO. LTD
October 31, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JUSTIN KOFI DORGU
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
October 31, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Jebsen & Jessen (GMBH) Co., a German trading company, sued a Ghana-incorporated company over unpaid invoices arising from 2013–2014 supplies of consumer goods and vehicles. The supplies were governed by written invoices, bills of lading, and General Conditions of Sale (GCS) stipulating net cash payment 120–180 days after invoice/dispatch. Plaintiff’s witness, Dominic Studte, tendered exhibits confirming dispatch and receipt, and the defendant admitted in cross-examination that invoices, bills of lading, and general conditions accompanied each shipment. The defendant asserted payment was contingent on proceeds from its retail credit sales and alleged delays, auctioning, and expiry, but produced no proof. Applying Ghana’s Evidence Act and contract doctrine, the High Court (Justice Justin Kofi Dorgu) held the written terms controlled and could be varied only in writing; defect claims required prompt written notice. The court entered judgment for US$1,192,790.32 and £196,154.02 with interest at GCB PLC’s prevailing rates from 2014, declined general damages, awarded US$20,000 costs, and allowed payment in Ghana cedi equivalent.
JUDGMENT
On or about the 9th October, 2019, the Plaintiff herein, a trading company registered
under the Laws of Germany took out the instant suit against the Defendants, also a
limited liability company incorporated in Ghana claiming the following reliefs;
(i) Recovery of the principal amount of One Million, One Hundred and Ninety
Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ninety United States Dollars, Thirty
Five Cents (USD 1, 192, 790.35)
(ii) Interest on the said amount of One Million, One Hundred and Ninety Two
Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ninety United States Dollars, Thirty
Five Cents (USD 1, 192, 790.35) at the prevailing Commercial Bank interest
rate from 19th October, 2016 till date of final payment
(iii) Recovery of the principal amount of One Hundred and Ninety Six
Thousand, One Hundred and Fifty Four Pounds and Two Pence (£196,
(iv) Interest on the principal amount of One Hundred and Ninety Six Thousand,
One Hundred and Fifty Four Pounds and Two Pence (£196, 154.02) at the
prevailing Commercial Bank interest rate from the 14th November, 2014 till
date of final payment.
(v) General damages for breach of contract
(v) Cost.
When the Plaintiff’s Writ of Summons were served on the Defendant, they entered
appearance and filed a Statement of Defence on the 20th of April, 2020. At the close of
pleadings, the following were set down as the issues for trial and determination. They
are:-
(a) Whether or not the invoices pursuant to which the goods were supplied
contained in them the terms of payment
(b) Whether or not the Parties have varied the terms of payment as contained in
the respective invoices pursuant to which the goods were supplied.
(c) Whether or not the delay in the arrival of Bill of Lading covered by invoices
numbers 91004770, 91004776 and 91004775 from the Plaintiff led to the
auctioning of the goods by Customs, Excise and Preventive Service at the
Tema Port.
(d) Whether or not the goods under invoice Number 91004538 and 91004642 to
the Defendant expired on arrival contrary to the terms of the agreement
between the Plaintiff and the Defendant
(e) Whether or not the Defendant’s payment to the Plaintiff of the contract sum
was tied to the terms of any purported contract between the Defendant and
the Ministry of Roads and Highways or any other third party.
(f) Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to its reliefs.
The facts of this case are that the Plaintiffs sometime in the year 2013 supplied the
Defendant at it