MCS ENTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. GLOBALPAK LIMITED

JUDGMENT

In this suit commenced at the Commercial Division of the High Court, Kumasi, the Plaintiff herein claimed an amount of US$ 18, 686.24 being the outstanding balance of goods supplied to the Defendant which the defendant has defaulted in paying since 24/09/2012. The Plaintiff further sought damages for breach of contract,recovery of expenses incurred as telephone charges , and debt recovery fees in pursuing the Defendant for over two and a half years.

Upon service of the writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on the Defendant Company, Adu Gyamfi & Associates entered appearance on its behalf, but failed to file a defence within the limited period of 14 days.

Consequently, the Plaintiff filed a motion on notice for judgment in default of defence on 25/09/2015, with a return date of 05/10/2015. The said motion was served on Counsel for the Defendant, Mr. Paul Adu Gyamfi, through his clerk by name Beatrice on 28/09/2015.

On 05/10/2015, both parties were absent. Counsel for the Plaintiff was present, but Kwadwo Owusu Ansah Esq. held brief for Counsel for the Defendant. The motion was duly moved and final judgment was entered against the Defendant for the liquidated sum endorsed on the writ of summons .

Pursuant to Order 13 r 5 of C.I. 47, the Plaintiff obtained an interlocutory judgment in respect of the claim for damages, recovery of telephone expenses and monies spent in trying to recover the monies owed by the Defendant. When the case came up for assessment of damages on 21/10/2015, the Defendant and its Counsel did not show up. The case was further adjourned to 11/11/2015. This time round, the Defendant Company was duly represented by its Director of Operations, Louis Adugu and their lawyer, Kwadwo Owusu Ansah.

Venkat Raman, a representative of the Plaintiff Company, gave evidence on its behalf. He told the court that upon the default of the Defendant in paying for goods supplied to him by the Plaintiff, a series of telephone calls were made to the company to demand payment. According to him, these telephone calls originated from the Plaintiff's Headquarters in London. On the average, the witness said three calls were made per day, but because the UK is a paperless country, he was unable to get an itemized bill. He also indicated that each call lasted for ten (10) minutes. He tendered in evidence a document detailing the estimated cost of telephone calls as exhibit 'A' , and urged the court to grant the Plaintiff the estimated phones calls as p