2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal by the defendant against a High Court judgment that found it responsible for the wrongful destruction of the plaintiff's cargo and ordered compensation. The plaintiff had imported 540 boxes of sparkling wine, which the defendant misrepresented as unwholesome frozen chicken to facilitate its destruction. The High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, leading to the appeal. The appellate court dismissed the defendant's appeal, finding sufficient documentary evidence and testimonial admissions proving the defendant's misrepresentation and intent to misappropriate the cargo. The court upheld the burden of proof on the plaintiff and the principle that the quality of evidence outweighs the quantity of witnesses.
J U D G M E N T
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.:
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Tema dated 25-2-2010. In the said decision, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff against defendant in the sum of GH¢486,000 (486 million old cedis) plus interest at the prevailing bank rate to be calculated from 17th of March, 2004 (the date the plaintiff made a demand for the release of its cargo but could not have it) to date of judgment. Cost of GH¢5,000 to the plaintiff.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the defendant appealed to this court.
The grounds of appeal are:
a. The judgment is against the evidence.
b. The learned trial Judge, with great respect, erred when she held that the respondent’s goods were in the custody and control of the appellant.
c. The learned Judge erred when she made a finding that the appellant’s intention to misappropriate the respondent’s cargo can be reasonably inferred from its act of notifying the respondent of its intention of having the cargo auctioned within 3 weeks and before the three weeks could expire, listing the cargo as frozen chicken for destruction.
d. The learned Judge erred when she made a finding that the appellant was responsible for the disappearance of the respondent’s goods.
e. The learned Judge erred when she held that the respondent’s goods were not destroyed.
f. Further and additional grounds to be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings.
The relief sought from this court is that, the judgment be reversed and judgment entered in favour of the defendant/appellant.
Before dealing with the arguments canvassed in support and against this appeal, I would like to give a brief background of this case.
The plaintiff company at the court below claimed against the defendant company the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that, the destruction of plaintiff’s goods at the instance of the defendant was wrongful.
2. Recovery of ¢486,000,000.00 being value of plaintiff’s goods destroyed at the instance of the defendant.
3. Interest on the said amount till date of final payment.
4. Damages for breach of contract.
The plaintiff’s writ was accompanied by a 20 paragraph statement of claim in which it avers among other things that, it imported into the country, a 20-footer reefer container that contained 540 boxes of semi-dry Bagrationi Sparkling Wine valued at ¢486million. The plaintiff avers further that, the consignment was shipped from the Port of Poti in Georgia, near