JEMT COMPANY LIMITED v. MAERSK GHANA LIMITED
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- IRENE C. DANQUAH, J.A.
- SENYO DZAMEFE , J.A
Areas of Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law
- Tort Law
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per Justice Mariama Owusu, dismissed an appeal from the High Court, Tema, arising out of a dispute between an importer and its shipping line, identified in the record as Maersk Line, over a reefer container carrying 540 boxes of Bagrationi Sparkling Wine. The importer paid customs duties and charges, yet the container could not be located. Maersk sent a final notice to auction the cargo within three weeks to get its container back into its flow, but before that period expired it applied to CEPS for urgent destruction and misdescribed the contents as unwholesome frozen chicken. Documentary evidence, including a Food and Drugs Board letter confirming wine has no expiry date, and admissions by Maersk’s representative, supported findings of misrepresentation and responsibility for the disappearance. Applying the omnibus ground standard and emphasizing quality of evidence, the Court affirmed recovery of GH¢486,000 plus interest and costs, and rejected arguments about CEPS not being called.
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