KINGSLEY ANIM-BOATENG VS VANKOFF SHIPPERS & ORS
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATRICIA QUANSAH
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff, a retired Ghanaian businessman, entered a shipping agreement with the 2nd Defendant in 2012 to ship shoes to Ghana, but the Defendants only delivered the Plaintiff's suitcases and sold the shoes. The Plaintiff filed suit for recovery and damages, while the Defendants denied the claims, citing poor condition of the shoes and additional costs. The court found substantial proof that the Defendants managed the shipping process and dismissed the Defendants' counterclaims, awarding the Plaintiff recovery of the shoes and costs for breach of contract.
1. INTRODUCTION[i] The Plaintiff herein stated he is a retired Ghanaian businessman who is resident in Canada and deals in shoes for men, women and children.
Sometime in 2012, the Plaintiff stated he was introduced to the 2nd Defendant by one Christiana Osei Bonsu as a shipping agent and a freight forwarder.
The Plaintiff thus entered into an agreement with the 2nd Defendant and the shipping companies that the 2nd Defendant was said to be managing both in the UK and in Ghana, i. e. the 1st and 3rd Defendants, to package and subsequently ship to Ghana 2, 915 pairs of brand new mixed shoes in a total of 135 boxes; together with 3 suit cases containing personal items. [ii] The 2nd Defendant was thus said to have personally taken custody of the 135 boxes of shoes and the 3 suitcases from Christiana Osei Bonsu in London and issued an invoice with a summary and details of the Plaintiff’s shoes to be shipped to Ghana, together with the cost of transportation, handling, packing and freight.
The agreement was further that the Plaintiff would pay for the cost of transportation, packaging, handling and freight to the Defendants immediately the Defendants shipped his goods to Ghana and same were delivered to him.
Per the Plaintiff, the Defendants shipped all the Plaintiff’s shoes and personal effects from Britain to Ghana and same were said to have been received by one Ruby Nyarko, said to be in charge of the 3rd Defendant’s office in Tema. [iii] Nonetheless, the Defendants only delivered the Plaintiff’s three suit cases containing the personal belongings through Ruby Nyarko and till date, the Defendants have been unable to deliver the 2, 915 pairs of shoes, in spite of repeated demands.
The Plaintiff thus undertook some private investigations of his own and according to the Plaintiff, he found out that the 2nd Defendant followed the shipment of the shoes to Ghana, claimed ownership of same and cleared them from the Tema Port without the Plaintiff’s knowledge and consent.
The 2nd Defendant was said to have sold out all the 2, 915 pairs of shoes and pocketed the proceeds. [iv] Further, the 3rd Defendant’s office admitted receipt of all 2, 915 pairs of shoes on the 22nd November 2012 but it was also confirmed that the 2nd Defendant cleared and claimed ownership of the shoes.
The Plaintiff was thus compelled to institute this action claiming the following reliefs: 2. RELIEFS SOUGHT BY THE PLAINTIFF[a] Recovery of 2, 915 pairs of mixed shoes. [b] Damag