MAVIS KRAMPAH VS KESKIM VENTURES LTD & 4 ORS.

On the 24th of June, 2022, Plaintiff herein filed an Application for Mandatory Injunction praying this Court to compel the 2nd Defendant to co-sign cheques for the payment of certain persons who were said to have supplied goods to the 1st Defendant Company.

The said Application was vehemently opposed by the 2nd Defendant who challenged the Plaintiff’s assertions on the basis that there was no evidence of the alleged purchases.

In order to ascertain the veracity of the Plaintiff’s assertions, this Court, on the 31st of October, 2022, with the agreement of both Parties to the instant suit (except 5th Defendant), ordered the appointment of Mr. Ben Afatsao, Principal Auditor of the Judicial Service to vet the purchases allegedly made by Plaintiff on behalf of the 1st Defendant, Keskim Ventures

Upon completion of the Report, the said referee came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff herein had made credit purchases totaling Two Hundred and Fifty-Three Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy-Eighty Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 253,278.00) on behalf of the 1st Defendant as of the 30th of September, 2021.The said Report was tendered in evidence by the said Auditor as Exhibit CE.

What can be gleaned from Exhibit CE is that only 10 out of the 24 Suppliers Invoices furnished by Plaintiff were vouched leading the said Auditor to resort to alternative means of ascertaining the veracity of the Plaintiff’s claims.

This, he is supposed to have done by the preparation of “Customer Confirmation Forms” which were filled and authenticated by the said Suppliers reached as evidenced by Appendix E-S

Exhibit CE further discloses that the Auditor was able to verify and vet 16 invoices in respect of ten (10) Suppliers. He also managed to reach fifteen (15) Suppliers for confirmation of the amount owed them by the Plaintiff prior to drawing his conclusions.

Upon being furnished a copy of Exhibit CE, Counsel for 1st to 4th Defendants informed the Court that he intended to challenge the Auditor’s findings and therefore sought leave to cross-examine him.

From the answers given by the Auditor under cross-examination the following facts became apparent;

a) No attempt was made by the Auditor to confirm the true identities of the persons contacted in the course of the Audit exercise in order to ascertain whether they were indeed the persons said to have supplied goods to the 1st Defendant Company.

b) No demand was made by the Auditor for the alleged Creditors/ Suppliers to produce their copies of i