N.D.K. FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. v. CLICK GLOBAL LIMITED & OTHERS
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARFUL-SAU, JA (PRESIDING)
- ADUAMA OSEI, JA
- MENSAH, JA
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a claim by the Plaintiff/Appellant for a sum of GH¢401,792.02 arising from a credit facility granted to the 1st Defendant. The trial court ruled in favor of the Appellant against the 1st and 2nd Defendants but dismissed claims against the Respondent. The Appellant appealed, challenging the trial court's interpretation of key exhibits and alleging misrepresentation by the Respondent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the exclusion clause in Exhibit G effectively absolved the Respondent from liability and that there was no misrepresentation.
ADUAMA OSEI, JA
In this judgment, the Plaintiff/Appellant will be called “the Appellant”, while the 3rd Defendant/Respondent is called “the Respondent”. The 1st and 2nd Defendants will continue to be so called.
By a writ of summons issued in the Commercial Division of the High Court, Accra, on the 3rd of December, 2012, the Appellant claimed against the 1st and 2nd Defendants and the Respondent payment of the sum of GH¢401,792.02, plus interest, costs and ”any further or other reliefs”.
In the statement of claim that accompanied the writ of summons, the Appellant explained that the said sum of GH¢401,792.02 was the amount of the 1st Defendant’s indebtedness to it arising out of a credit facility it had granted to the 1st Defendant under a loan agreement dated the 27th of May, 2011. The 2nd Defendant had been made a party to the action by virtue of a personal guarantee he had executed in relation to the credit facility, and the Respondent had been made a party because, as the Appellant contended in the statement of claim, it advanced the credit facility to the 1st Defendant on the basis of two letters dated the 10th and 24th of May, 2011 respectively by which the Respondent had informed the Appellant that a sum of US$151,806.46 was due from it to the 1st Defendant in September – October, 2011 and that it would effect payment of the said sum in the joint names of the Appellant and the 1st Defendant.
Beyond the pleaded claim against the Respondent, Counsel for the Appellant, in his cross-examination of the Respondent’s witness, alleged misrepresentation against the Respondent and proceeded in his written address to invite the trial Court to hold the Respondent liable to compensate the Appellant for any damage suffered by the Appellant as a result of the alleged misrepresentation.
On their part, the 1st and 2nd Defendants, in their statement of defence, admitted the debt alleged by the Appellant. They however contended that there was an underlying contract between the 1st Defendant and the Respondent by which the Respondent bound itself to effect payment of the said debt. They also averred that there was an internet connectivity services agreement between them and the Respondent and there was an understanding that the said agreement would not be unreasonably, unlawfully and arbitrarily terminated by the Respondent. They alleged that the Respondent had unreasonably, unlawfully and arbitrarily terminated the agreement and their indebtedness to the Appellant