POLYTANK GHANA LIMITED VS AFRICAN INVESTMENT AND MANUF. GH. LTD

This is a default judgement not because the Defendant failed to file a defence but because it failed to testify in this suit. The matters for determination are therefore not complicated. At least not from the one-sided evidence available to this Court.

On the 20th of April, 2021, the Plaintiff instituted the present suit against the Defendant for inter alia the following reliefs;

1. The sum of Two Hundred and Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty-Seven Ghana Cedis Twenty-Two Pesewas (GH¢ 217, 957.22)

2. Interest on the sum of Two Hundred and Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty-Seven Ghana Cedis Twenty-Two Pesewas (GH¢ 217, 957.22) from the 1st of April 2019 till date of final payment

3. Costs

Plaintiff says it is a Ghanaian registered limited liability company engaged in the production of general plastic materials and water reservoirs. Defendant, like the Plaintiff is also a Ghanaian Registered Company engaged in the production of soft drinks and energy drinks

Between the years of 2016 to 2019 the Defendant approached the Plaintiff for the supply of clear PET preforms (hereinafter referred to as the goods). By the cause of dealing between the parties, the said goods were purchased on credit upon the issuance of post-dated cheques as security for the due repayment of the goods.

Details of the goods supplied to the Defendant on credit and payments made to Plaintiff during the period are copiously set out in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.

Plaintiff says that the Defendant’s indebtedness to Plaintiff stood at Two Hundred and Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty-Seven Ghana Cedis Twenty-Two Pesewas (GH¢ 217, 957.22) as at the 1st of April, 2019. However, the Defendant for no valid reason has failed or refused to make good its indebtedness despite persistent demands.

By its Statement of Defence filed on the 8th of April, 2022, the Defendant does not deny being supplied with goods by the Plaintiff. Its case however is that the parties had agreed that payment for same would be contingent upon profits being made from the use of the goods. According to Defendant its failure to make further payments to Plaintiff is due to the defective state of a large consignment of goods supplied which to Plaintiff’s knowledge rendered them unfit for purpose.

Upon the failure of the parties to resolve their dispute at the Pre-trial Settlement Conference, two main issues were settled for determination at the trial. These were;

1. Whether or not as a