ROM ENGINEERING LTD v. NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK & ORS

GBADEGBE JSC:

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal that reversed in part the decision of the trial High Court in the matter herein. The facts on which this action has been contested in the various courts may be stated briefly as follows. The 1st defendant, a financial institution engaged in the business of banking on or about 2nd May 2008 obtained judgment against the plaintiff in suit number AB/56/2008 and subsequently enforced the said judgment by a writ of fifa directed at the property of the plaintiff situate at Kpone near Tema. The evidence proffered by the plaintiff is to the effect that its factory premises situate at Kpone was subsequently sealed off by officials from the High Court, Accra and its workers driven out of the premises. According to the plaintiff following the attachment, the 1stdefendant engaged the services of the 2nd defendant, a private security company to keep watch over the property. The evidence also reveals that on 27th October 2009, PW1, the Managing Director of the plaintiff company received word from an informant through the Chief security Officer of the plaintiff company that some people were seen removing certain items from the premises of the plaintiff company, which had earlier on been attached by a writ of fifa.

The plaintiff’s representative testified that following the information he received from his head of security, he lodged a complaint with the police and that subsequently two persons were arrested in connection with the removal of the items from the factory premises. Unfortunately, so the evidence portrays, the two who were arrested were employees of the 2nd defendant, a company that was engaged to protect the factory premises by the 1st defendant and indeed, from the testimony of the police officer who was responsible for the investigations, one of them was actually engaged in escorting the purchaser of the items that were asported from the premises while the items were being taken away on a vehicle. It was further alleged that based upon the investigations, there was a criminal case pending against the two security personnel employed by the 2nd defendant.

On these facts, the plaintiff company instructed its solicitors to take out the writ of summons herein against the defendants jointly and severally claiming:

Order for the refund of the current cost of 1,708 pieces of various assorted items stolen and missing under the control and custody of the officials of Defendants from the attac