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
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana High Court, per Justice Angelina Mensa‑Homiah, resolved an oral sale‑of‑goods dispute between a supplier of used ladies shoes and a retailer operating from Kejetia K.O with storage at Moro market. The supplier asserted he delivered GHC 54,870 worth of shoes in January 2013, payable by December 2013, and the retailer paid only small sums and issued dishonoured cheques, prompting a police report. The retailer alleged the December 2013 and January 2014 consignments were largely defective and that the parties later agreed a reduced liability of GHC 16,000. Applying the Evidence Act and the Sale of Goods Act, the court found the supplier’s account more probable, rejected the defective‑goods and compromise defenses, held that the goods were accepted and not rejected, that property and risk passed, and ordered payment of GHC 40,270 with interest calculated at the Bank of Ghana 91‑day Treasury Bills rate and costs.
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