KEYMAS GHANA LTD (SUING PER ITS CEO PLAINTIFF BUKARI ABDUL-RAUF) v. NANTOMAH NAMPASIA AND AMINU IMORO

JUDGEMENT

Introduction:

Plaintiff filed the Writ of Summons on 22nd August 2022. By the court’s order, Plaintiff filed

an amended Writ of Summons claiming against the Defendants as follows:

1. An order compelling the defendant to pay their remaining principal balance,

the sum of GH₡30,800.

2. An order of the court compelling Defendants to pay their outstanding interest

the sum of GH₡8000.

3. General damages.

4. Cost.

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff is a company registered in Ghana operating in agri-business in the Upper East and

North-East Regions of the Republic of Ghana. Plaintiff commenced the suit via its Chief

Executive Officer, Bukari Abdul-Rauf. Plaintiff’s case is that the Defendants entered into an

agreement with the Plaintiff on 25th June 2021 for the plaintiff to supply them with certified

seeds of rice which the plaintiff accordingly did by supplying a total of 160 bags of certified

seeds of rice to the Defendants. Plaintiff avers that the cost of each bag of certified seeds of

rice which includes interest is Two Hundred and Fifty Ghana Cedis (GHS 250) therefore

totaling Forty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS 40,000). According to the Plaintiff per their

agreement, the Defendants were to pay the GHS 40,000 to it immediately after harvesting the

rice precisely by January 2022. Plaintiff avers that the Defendants only paid an amount of

One Thousand and Two Hundred Ghana Cedis (GHS 1,200) leaving an outstanding balance

of Thirty-Eight Thousand and Eight Hundred Ghana Cedis (GHS38,800) which includes the

interest of Eight Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS 8,000) on the cost of the 160 bags of certified

seeds of rice supplied to the Defendants. Plaintiff avers that the Defendants have deliberately

failed to pay the outstanding balance thereby breaching the agreement they entered.

CASE OF D1:

The case of D1 is that he and D2 entered into an agreement with Plaintiff for Plaintiff to

provide the following five (5) services to them:

• tractor services for land preparation

• certified seeds of rice

• fertilizer

• agro-chemicals and

• harvesting services

D1 avers that under the agreement, he and D2 were responsible for clearing their respective

farmlands and bearing cost of labour and cost of harvesting the rice. According to D1, in

return for the services of the Plaintiff, they were required after harvesting the rice to give to

the Plaintiff five (5) bags of grains of rice per each acre farmed by the Defendants. D1 avers

that c