JF-K COMPANY LTD. v. VOLVO TRUCK COMPANY & ANOTHER

F. G. KORBIEH, J. A.

Let me state right from the beginning that there are two appeals in this case both of which were filed under Order 8 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997(C. I. 19). I will explain in more detail in due course.

The genesis of the case leading up to the two appeals we are dealing with comprise of the following summary of facts.

The plaintiff was at all material times a company incorporated under laws of Ghana.

By its amended writ of summons filed on the 14th July, 2014, the plaintiff claimed against the two defendants jointly and severally special damages of (i) US$1, 675, 156. 03 or its cedi equivalent and (ii) “GH¢5, 000, 000. 00 plus 32% interest from March, 2013 till final date of payment being judgment debt from the reduction and cessation of operation of the tracks (sic) and trailers at the instance of the defendants” and general damages of ten million US dollars or its cedi equivalent.

The plaintiff’s case was that it ordered 15 Volvo brand tipper trucks from the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant to enable it “haul manganese and limestone”; but that when the trucks were put to use they were found to be defective hence the plaintiff was ordered by the defendants to cease operations in order for the defects to be rectified.

In the meantime the parties (and the builder of the trailer parts of the trucks, Katmerciler from Turkey) had met and drawn up an action plan to enable the defendants rectify the defects on the vehicles so that the plaintiff could re-commence operations.

Due to the delay in the implementation of the action plan by the defendants the plaintiff had “incurred huge losses and other (sic) and suffered other hardship and injuries such as operations, loss of contracts etc. ” The plaintiff had therefore engaged the services of a valuer who had assessed the actual loss of income incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the defects on the trucks leading to the cessation of operations.

The 1st defendant denied that it was liable to the plaintiff for its losses.

It however admitted that it sold fifteen Volvo trucks to the plaintiff but stated that the trucks were covered by its International Warranty Terms and Conditions which “are applied for the 1st defendant’s sale of trucks globally. ” The 1st defendant pleaded further that the International Warranty Terms and Conditions did not cover equipment/parts, superstructure or other installation work not assembled/installed by it and that this was expressly noted in