METSO MINING CONST. TECHNOLOGY vs ESM QUARRY LIMITED
December 7, 2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
December 7, 2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiff, a supplier of mining equipment and spares, sued defendant, a quarry operator at Buduburam, for unpaid invoices arising from deliveries made on 20 June 2008, 15 September 2010, and 4 December 2012 totaling 43,899.77. After partial payments of 41,125.22 and a judgment on admission for 3,801.58, the dispute narrowed to an outstanding 9,972.57 covering spares held at defendants site. Evidence showed a consignment arrangement managed by defendants warehouse keeper, with monthly stocktaking and invoices due within 30 days. The court found an implied agreement, based on course of dealing and invoices, that payment was due within 30 days, and held that property in the goods passed on delivery. Defendants contention that unused items were not payable failed. The court ordered recovery of 9,972.57, interest at prevailing commercial bank lending rates from 3 January 2013, and costs of GHc5,000, while declining separate damages.
1 Introduction
The parties in this case are in the mining, construction and quarry industry.
Based on claims of non-payment of full value of equipment they have supplied to defendant variously on 20 June 2008, 15 September, 2010 and 4 December 2012 contrary to the agreed payment terms, the plaintiff by writ of summons commenced this suit against the defendant for:
1 Recovery of money the sum of EUR €103, 774. 15 or its Cedi equivalent being outstanding debt overdue and owing to plaintiff from sale of mining equipments to defendant
2 Interest on relief (i) supra at the prevailing private commercial banks lending rate from various dates of 20/7/08, 15/10/10 and 3/1/12 to date of final payment
3 General damages for breach of Contract
4 Costs including Legal and Administrative Costs
2 Plaintiffs case
Plaintiff’s claim is that on 20 June 2008, 15 September 2010, and 4 December 2012, it sold and supplied mining equipment to defendant in total value of €343, 899. 77 that was to be paid by 30 days upon supply or invoicing.
Defendant after paying €241, 125. 22 out of €343, 899. 77 has failed to pay €103, 774. 15 outstanding in spite of several demands and reminders.
Defendant’s breach in payment, according to plaintiff has occasioned losses of their business capital and operations.
3 Defendant’s case
On the face of their pleadings, defendant raises no denial to have been supplied with some mining equipment from plaintiff.
Its defense basically is that per the agreement, costs of the equipment were to be paid for by their (defendant’s) bankers, and that terms of payment were not limited to 30 days after supply or invoicing.
Besides, defendant contends that its indebtedness to plaintiff is less than €103, 774. 15. Defendant denies that it had failed to settle the debt as plaintiff claims. They contend that plaintiff’s suit is premature, as there had been “fresh discussions to enable [them] to settle the debt on its own”, and that discussions for payment of the amount outstanding are ongoing, and had not broken down.
4 Issues for determination
The pre-trial judge1 had hitherto set down the following issues for trial:
1 Whether or not Plaintiff supplied and sold mining equipment and parts to the Defendant on various dates to the tune of €348, 899. 77 payable within one calendar month from date of supply and invoicing
2 Whether or not defendant settled €241, 125. 22 leaving balance of €103, 774. 15 owing and outstanding.
3 Whether or the parties agr