MADAM SELINA v. AGYEMAN DUAH & ANOTHER
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- AYEBI, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- TORKORNOO (MRS), J. A.
- DOMAKYAAREH (MRS),J. A
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Agency Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellate court set aside the judgment against the Appellant on the grounds that it erroneously required her to reimburse the Respondent despite a prior judgment in her favor on the same facts. The case emphasized the principles of res judicata and proper application of agency law.
J U D G M E N T
TORKORNOO (MRS) , J. A:
The undisputed facts of this case are that the Appellant supplied goods on credit to the Respondent to sell in Mali. The Appellant at that time was in an amorous relationship with a gentleman called Agyeman Duah. Agyeman Duah was the 1st Defendant in this suit when it was commenced by the Respondent in the circuit court, Kumasi as suit number A2/152/2011.
The agreed facts are that, the said Agyeman Duah, presenting himself as an emissary of the Appellant, went to the Respondent in Mali and collected goods amounting to 1million CFA from the Respondent. He claimed that the goods had been sold for 900,000 CFA and the Respondent had to add another 100,000 CFA to make up the full value of the goods she had received. Respondent paid this extra 100,000 CFA. Thereafter, the Appellant demanded her money for the goods supplied and refused to be satisfied with the explanation that goods amounting to 1 million CFA had been collected by Agyeman Duah as her messenger.
When the Respondent failed to satisfy Appellant’s demands, the Appellant sued the Respondent in the Circuit Court, Kumasi for the 1 million CFA. This was suit number A2/80/2010. At the trial, the Respondent called the said Agyeman Duah as her witness in proof of her position that the Appellant’s goods had been given to Appellant through Agyeman Duah. That case was suit number A2/80/2010 and it was heard by His Honour Adjei Frimpong (as he then was). H/H Agyei Frimpong held that the relationship between the Appellant and Respondent was contractual, and that it is a fundamental obligation of a purchaser of goods to pay for them when delivered.
He rejected the testimony of the Respondent and Agyemang Duah that he had gone for the Appellant’s goods from Respondent on the ‘mandate’ and ‘instructions’ of the Appellant. In his judgment, he said that he ‘did not find (Agyeman Duah’s) evidence reliable’. He ‘did not believe’ him. He said ‘I also do not find sufficient evidence to show that the goods were actually seized and sold. Assuming they were, it was not established that he acted on the instructions of the (Respondent)’. (emphasis mine).
He entered judgment for the 1 million CFA in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent. The Respondent did not appeal this judgment. Her response was to commence this action appealed against as suit number A2/152/11 against Agyeman Duah for the following claims:
CLAIM
1. Two thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Ghana cedi