PRESTIGE CHEMICALS GH. LTD vs MCS INT. LIMITED
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP EMMANUEL AMO YARTEY (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a dispute between a Ghanaian plastic manufacturer and a foreign supplier over a debt and property transfer agreement. The court dismissed the Plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction, as they failed to obtain leave of court before serving the writ on the foreign Defendant. The court also dismissed the Defendant's counterclaim as statute-barred. The case highlights important principles of civil procedure, including the requirements for serving foreign entities and the statute of limitations for debt recovery actions. It also emphasizes that issues of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of proceedings and that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court by consent if it otherwise lacks jurisdiction.
The case of the Plaintiffs as captured by their Amended Statement of Claim dated the 26th day of June, 2014 is that at all material times they were engaged in the manufacture of plastic products.
And that the Plaintiff was importing the raw materials for its production from the Defendant under a supplier’s credit.
The credit supplies were covered by a credit guarantee insurance policy taken by the Defendant.
Plaintiff defaulted in repaying for the goods supplied to it by Defendant and the parties in a bid to resolve the problem of non-payment entered into an agreement dated 22nd November, 2003 under which Plaintiff transferred two properties, shed numbers 2 and 3 to the Defendant in partial satisfaction of the debt.
The parties placed a value of US$80, 000. 00 on the two sheds, and as Plaintiff was then owing Defendant US$130, 000. 00 Plaintiff was left with an outstanding balance of US$50, 000. 00 to pay to the Defendant.
The Defendant, who was to receive shed number 2, measuring 100ft by 50ft and shed number 3 measuring 50ft by 20ft actually took shed number 2 of 100ft by 50ft and shed number 3 of 50ft by 50ft; thus taking an additional space of 50ft by 30ft than what was negotiated and agreed by both parties in the November, 2003, agreement.
According to the Plaintiff after entering into the agreement the Defendant, contrary to promise made to it (Plaintiff) stopped doing business with Plaintiff by refusing to supply to the Plaintiff raw materials on credit.
Plaintiff could also not secure raw materials on credit from other suppliers in Europe, and in its bid to find out the cause of its inability to secure credit supplies from Europe, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant in or around the year 2003, had made a claim from its insurers who after paying the claim then downgraded Plaintiff’s credit rating, thus making Plaintiff a high risk company to do business with.
It is also the case of the Plaintiff that in the meantime, Defendant had represented to Plaintiff that it (Defendant) used its own resources in funding the credit supplies to Plaintiff so when the default occurred in 2003, Defendant approached Plaintiff to demand payment culminating in the November, 2003 Agreement.
It is Plaintiff’s case that at the time the November, 2003 Agreement was signed and part performed with the transfer of the two sheds numbers 2 & 3 to Defendant, the latter (Defendant) had already received payment from the Insurance Company, thus resulting in the down gradin