MENERGY INTERNATIONAL GH. LTD. vs HAPAGLLOYD & ANOR
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J)
Areas of Law
- Commercial Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff contracted the 1st Defendant to transport frozen food from Germany to Tema Port. Upon arrival, the container was unplugged for 72 hours at the 2nd Defendant's terminal, causing the goods to be damaged. Plaintiff sought damages but was initially denied by Defendants, prompting legal action. The Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the Plaintiff had the capacity to bring the suit. The Court cited previous case law and statutory provisions to support its ruling, ultimately overruling the objections and awarding costs to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff/Respondent (hereafter called the Plaintiff) contracted 1st Defendant/Applicant (hereafter called the 1st Defendant) to transport frozen food products from Germany to the Tema Port for delivery to a consignee.
The 2nd Defendant, is the Container Terminal Operator at the Tema Port.
Sometime in February 2012, the container holding the frozen food products was dispatched by the 1st Defendant via its vessel the MOL VOLTA (the vessel), from Germany en route to Tema.
The Terms and Conditions of carriage were contained in the accompanying Bill of Lading (BOL). It was a condition of the carriage agreement that the 1st Defendant would maintain the temperature of the container at a set temperature of -20oc during transit.
The vessel arrived at the Tema Port on the 14th March, 2012 and the container holding the frozen food was stored at the 2nd Defendant’s terminal after discharge.
The Plaintiff was informed about the arrival and malfunctioning of the container.
On 19th April, 2012, the 2nd Defendant commissioned a surveyor, Swift Marine Surveys and Logistics Ghana Limited to establish the cause of damage to the cargo whilst at the terminal.
The survey report revealed that the container was unplugged for 72 hours at the Empty Container Bay and this could be attributed to negligence on the part of the receiving clerks and reefer bay monitoring team.
The Plaintiff made a claim for the damaged cargo.
The Defendants have jointly failed to settle the claim of the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff therefore brought the present suit asking for the sum of USD95, 870. 48 being the cost incurred in the importation of the frozen food products damaged by the Defendants and interest on the sum claimed, among other reliefs.
The 1st Defendant has raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Ghanaian Courts to determine the suit and also for lack of capacity on the part of the Plaintiff to bring the present action.
The issues I have been called upon to adjudicate on by this application are as to whether or not the Ghanaian Courts have jurisdiction to determine the suit and whether or not the Plaintiff has capacity to bring the instant suit.
It is to be observed that the Bill of Lading should be the reference document in such a carriage of goods contract.
It is the document that contains the identities, intentions, obligations and rights of the parties.
With respect to the issue regarding jurisdiction, the 1st Defendant has urged this Court to view clause