Ngozi Emeh v. Unity Oil Company Limited

Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim issued from the Registry of this Court on 24th May, 2018, Ngozi Emeh, operating under the business name and style Emeh Trade Enterprise, claimed against the Defendant Oil Marketing Company as follows: i. An order for the recovery of the sum of One Million Cedis (GH¢1, 000, 000. 00) being 10%facilitation fee payable to Plaintiff on the amount so far paid for the acquisition of the retail outlets by GOIL.

Interest on the amount in (i) from February 2018 to date of final and actual payment.

An order compelling Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff 10% of whatever outstanding amount GOIL has paid or is required to pay in respect of the retail outlets purchased by GOIL.

Interest on the amount in (iii) from the date payment was/is made to the Defendant by GOIL to date of final and actual payment by Defendant to Plaintiff.

v. An order compelling the Defendant to furnish Plaintiff with a copy of the contract between GOIL and Defendant and to render accounts to the Plaintiff in respect of all payments made by GOIL.

Punitive/Exemplary damages for breach of contract.

Costs, including but not limited to legal fees.

The Plaintiff’s case is that sometime on July 2017, she entered into an oral agreement with the Defendant through its Manager, Alfred Attah Frempong whereby the Plaintiff was appointed/selected/approved by the Defendant to act as its agent in finding potential buyers for some of the defendant’s retail outlets.

Per the oral agreement, the Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to 10% of all proceeds from any sale of the Defendant’s retail outlets given to her to find a successful buyer.

The Plaintiff alleges that the said oral agreement was subsequently converted or reduced into writing and signed by the parties thereto.

And, even though she was instrumental in the sale of some of the defendant’s outlets to another OMC, GOIL, the Defendant has refused to pay her the agreed commission of 10% from the proceeds.

The Defendant denies the Plaintiff’s contention and says the Plaintiff has no capacity to sue because the Plaintiff falsely represented to the Defendant to believe that it is a private limited liability company which can facilitate the sale of some of its stations to some Oil Marketing Companies excluding GOIL.

The Plaintiff did not deny the existence of an Oral Agreement which was subsequently reduced into writing.

The Defendant’s case is that prior to the Agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant had