KWAME TIAKA v. ISAAC OSEI
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a dispute over the sale of used ladies shoes and sandals. The Plaintiff claimed the Defendant owed GHC 50,070.00 for goods supplied in January 2013. The Defendant argued that some goods were damaged and that he had made partial payments. The court found the Defendant's testimony not credible and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. Key legal principles applied include the buyer's inability to reject goods after acceptance without a fundamental breach by the seller, the passing of property and risk to the buyer upon acceptance of delivery, and the unpaid seller's right to maintain an action for the price of goods. The court awarded the Plaintiff GHC 40,270.00 plus interest, applying relevant sections of the Sale of Goods Act 1962 and considering the payments already made by the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
This court has been called upon to determine the rights and obligations of the parties herein under a sale of goods contract which they orally entered into, even though the endorsement on the writ of summons appears to be a normal liquidated demand. The amount being claimed is GHC 50,070.00 plus interest, from 01/01/2014, till date of final payment. The Plaintiff’s case is that for approximately six years prior to January, 2013, he supplied the Defendant with used ladies shoes and sandals. In the course of the dealings, the Plaintiff alleged that he supplied the defendant with ladies shoes and sandals worth GHC 54,870.00 on or before January, 2013, to be paid on or before December 2013. By the close of December 2013, the Plaintiff contended that the Defendant had not made any payment at all, and after repeated demands, he paid GHC 1,000.00.
He further alleged that two post-dated cheques issued by the Defendant as part payment could not be cashed, and following a report to the police, the Defendant made three payments of GHC 2,500.00; GHC 500.00 and GHC 800.00, leaving a balance of GHC 50,070.00. It has also been alleged that the Defendant has removed all the merchandise from his shop known by the Plaintiff at Kejetia K.O. The Defendant did not deny his course of dealings with the Plaintiff commencing 06/05/2013, but alleged that he fully paid for all the used ladies shoes and sandals delivered to him before December, 2013, including the goods worth GHC 33,750.00 supplied to him in July, 2013. It is his case that on 13/12/2013 and January, 2014 respectively, he took delivery of 2nd hand ladies shoes from the Plaintiff but most of them were damaged and he informed the Plaintiff that he could not sell them because they were damaged on arrival.
The Defendant further averred that he informed the Plaintiff about the condition of the shoes but the Plaintiff urged him to sell the goods ones and he would ‘do something’ about the rest. He also alleged that to the knowledge of the Plaintiff, he was unable to sell about 500 pairs of damaged shoes, and, in October, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed that he should pay the sum of GHC 16,000.00 as his total indebtedness. Further, the Defendant contended that the Plaintiff agreed to supply him with more shoes so that the proceeds could be used to offset his losses. In connection with the cheques which the Plaintiff could not cash, the Defendant stated that due to insufficient funds, he stopped his bankers from effecti