OCTILLIONS FZE VS SAHARA ROYAL GOLD REFINERY & ANOR
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE SHEILA MINTA
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff, a gold trading company, sued the Defendants over non-delivery of gold bars and claimed payment-related grievances. The Defendants denied wrongdoing and counterclaimed fraud. After trial, the Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff for $370,818.62 plus damages, dismissing Defendants' counterclaims.
INTRODUCTION
Lord Hope of Craighead in the case of Chester vrs. Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 at para. 87 as submitted by Counsel for the Plaintiff stated:- “The purpose of the law is to uphold rights and to offer remedies in cases of breached duties.”
On 25th October, 2019 the Plaintiff in this matter, a company incorporated in the United Arab Emirates engaged in the business of gold trading instituted the current suit against the Defendants jointly and severally for the following reliefs:-
i. An order directed at the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of US$370,818.62, the breakdown of which is as follows:
· US$105,298.62 being monies standing to the Plaintiff’s credit in the 1st Defendant’s account prior to the submission of the pro forma invoice on May 23, 2018, for the Proposed Shipment;
· US$190,000.00 being the remainder of the total discounted price for the Proposed Shipment.
· US$40 being the refundable Deposit paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and
· US$35,520.00 being liquidated special damages for non-delivery.
ii. Interest on the amount claimed in relief (i) at the prevailing commercial rate from May 24, 2018, till date of final payment.
iii. General damages for breach of contract.
iv. Costs including lawyer’s fees and litigation expenses.
v. Such further orders or reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit.
According to the Plaintiff the parties in this case duly entered into an agreement for the sale of gold to it by the Defendants. By the Agreement the Plaintiff was to pre-finance the purchase of the gold by the Plaintiff based on the invoices submitted to it by the 1st Defendant for quantity and quality of gold to be supplied. That having made various payments to the Defendants they failed to supply the value of gold that ought to be supplied which has culminated in the instant suit.
The Defendants on the other hand denied owing the Plaintiff in their Statement of Defence filed on 10th June, 2020, and stated among others that the Plaintiff underpriced the gold bars supplied it by the 1st Defendant and also sold the gold bars supplied only during the times that the prices were low. They also Counterclaimed against the Plaintiff as follows:-
1. An order directed at Plaintiff to refund to 1st Defendant the rest of money it has illegally locked up for the 8.kgs of gold sent by 1st Defendant to Plaintiff.
2. An order for the parties to go into account.
Below are summaries of