March 21, 2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per P. Bright Mensah JA, with concurrences by Richard Adjei Frimpong JSC and Novisi Aryene JA, reviewed a High Court judgment on admissions arising from a commercial relationship. The respondent advanced GH¢310,000 to the first appellant to clear face mask containers and supplied 40,000 antigen test kits worth GH¢1,480,000, for which the second appellant issued post‑dated cheques later dishonoured. Upholding judgment on admissions against the first and second appellants, the court found clear acknowledgments of indebtedness in the pleadings and conduct; issuance and dishonour of cheques supported estoppel and conclusive presumptions under the Evidence Act. However, the court held the third appellant was not liable because no written, signed guarantee existed under section 14 of the Contracts Act. The High Court’s costs were found excessive and substituted with GH¢50,000, and appeal costs were set at GH¢10,000 for the third appellant and GH¢20,000 for the respondent against the first and second appellants.
BRIGHT MENSAH JA:
The instant appeal is against the judgment the High Court, Accra entered on 09/09/2022 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent hereinafter simply referred to as the respondent, as against the defendants/appellant, the appellants herein. The question to be answered in this appeal which is at the heart of this judgment is whether, prima facie, the appellants per their statement of defence filed in the case, admitted their liability to the respondent. The said statement of defence appears on pp 38-43 of the record of appeal [roa].
Significantly, upon an application for judgment on admission made to the lower court, which application was accompanied by a supporting affidavit and some annexures, as appearing on pp 74 – 105 [roa], the trial court entered judgment for the respondent. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the appellants did on 26/09/2022, file a notice of appeal on the grounds that:
1. The learned trial judge erred when he held that the 1st defend-
ants/appellant had expressly admitted the plaintiff/respondent’s
claim.
2. The learned trial judge erred when held that the 2nd defendant/
appellant had admitted the plaintiff/respondent’s claim against
him after the 2nd defendant/appellant had expressly denied the
allegation of fraud.
3. The learned trial judge erred when he held that the 3rd defendant/
appellant had admitted the plaintiff/respondent’s claim against him after the 2nd defendant/appellant had expressly denied guaranteeing the goods supplied to the 1st defendant/appellant.
4. The cost awarded by the honourable court was excessive. See: pp 137-138 [roa]
It was indicated in this appeal that further grounds may be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings but that never was.
The judgment of the lower court complained of, appears on pp 115-116 [roa].
Also worth considering in this judgment is the complaint that the costs the lower court awarded in favour of the respondent was excessive; the legal point whether the 3rd appellant guaranteed the payment of goods and services the respondent supplied and rendered to the 1st and 2nd appellant in the event of their default to liquidate the amount involved.
The writ of summons:
On record, the respondent caused to be issued out of the registry of the lower court on 13/04/2022, a writ of summons claiming against the appellants jointly and severally, the under listed judicial reliefs:
a. Order for plaintiff to recover the sum of One