MESSRS ASKUS. COMPANY v. HARRY BOAKYE & OTHERS
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AKUFFO (MS.) JSC (PRESIDING)
- GBADEGBE JSC
- AKOTO- BAMFO (MRS) JSC
- APPAU JSC
- PWAMANG JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant, a long-time distributor for the 3rd respondent, faced the unlawful seizure of his goods and property due to payment disputes. He sued the respondents and won various damages in the High Court, but the respondents appealed, leading the Court of Appeal to reduce the damages. The Supreme Court reinstated the original damages awarded by the High Court, citing wrongful conduct and the propriety of exemplary damages.
JUDGMENT
YAW APPAU, JSC:
This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 31st January 2014. The grounds of appeal are threefold and they are as follows:
a) That the learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they substituted their judgment for that of the trial High Court.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR OF LAW: Failing to make any Order in respect of certain reliefs granted the appellant herein by the trial High court and yet substituting its judgment for that of the trial High Court though the said reliefs were not appealed against by the defendants/appellants/respondents.
b) The learned justices of the Court of Appeal failed to exercise their discretion judicially when they substituted the award of Eighty thousand Ghana cedis (GH₵80,000.00) made in favour of the plaintiff/respondent/appellant by the learned trial judge with Five thousand Ghana cedis (GH₵5,000.00) as General Damages.
c) The judgment is against the weight of evidence.
The facts in this case are straightforward and not in controversy whatsoever. The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the trial High Court and would be simply referred to as ‘appellant’ in this judgment, was the distributor of the products of the 3rd defendant/appellant/respondent. The 1st and 2nd defendants/appellants/respondents were staff of the 3rd defendant/appellant/respondent. Since all three were sued jointly, they would all be referred to simply as ‘respondents’ in this judgment.
The respondents and their predecessors supplied the appellant with products from their company under their usual trade agreement on various occasions spanning a period of over thirty years. The agreement was that the appellant was to pay for the supplies by the issuance of cheques to be cleared by the 3rd respondent ten (10) days after each supply.
Between the months of February and March 2006, some cheques issued by the appellant for the payment of supplies made were dishonoured by the paying bank. Due to disagreements between the parties on the said payments, the 3rd respondent, through the 1st and 2nd respondents, solicited the assistance of the Police and went to the premises of the appellant to evacuate all the remaining products supplied to the appellant without the consent or approval of the appellant. In the course of the evacuation of the products, the respondents locked up the two warehouses of the applicant where the products were kept. They again seized two of the vans appellant was using to exec