SMICE INTERNATIONAL LTD. vs FRAGA OIL GHANA LTD.
December 21, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AFI AGBANU KUDOMOR (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law
December 21, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A Ghana High Court, per Justice Afi Agbanu Kudomor, resolved a commercial sale dispute over a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TXL. A vehicle seller supplied the SUV, identified by chassis JTEBX3FJ1BK060975 and registration GT 6383‑12, to a corporate buyer on 1 February 2012 for US$65,500. Documentary exhibits—the final invoice, a waybill, and a receipt for US$25,000—were all dated that day, evidencing an agreed sale and a part payment that left US$40,500 outstanding. The buyer maintained it had bought in 2011 and fully paid, and pleaded limitation. Applying the Limitation Act (section 4(1)) and section 19(1)(a), the Court held the cause of action accrued on the date of part payment, rendering the suit timely. Evidence showed the vehicle remained registered to the seller with DVLA, and the buyer failed to prove full payment. The Court entered judgment for the seller for the cedi equivalent of US$40,500, with interest from February 2012, and awarded GH¢100,000 costs.
Plaintiff per its Writ of Summons claims against Defendant the following reliefs:
1. Recovery of the cedi equivalent of FORTY THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED UNITED STATES DOLLARS (US$40,500.00)
2. Interest on the said cedi equivalent of FORTY THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED UNITED STATES DOLLARS (US$40,500.00)
3. At the prevailing rate of interest from February 2012 till date of final payment.
4. Cost on full indemnity basis.
Plaintiff’s case is that on 1st February 2012, it entered into a contract with Defendant for the purchase of a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TXL at the cost of SIXTY-FIVE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED UNITED STATES DOLLARS (US$65,500.00).
That the vehicle with Chassis number JTEBX3FJ1BK060975 was duly registered with registration number GT 6383-12.
It was delivered to Defendant after which Defendant’s representative paid an initial deposit of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS (US$25,000.00); leaving an outstanding balance of FORTY THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED UNITED STATES DOLLARS (US$40,500.00).
That the title documents remained in Plaintiff’s name pending the full realization of the debt. That despite several attempts by Plaintiff on Defendant to settle its indebtedness, it (Defendant) has failed to do so.
Defendant in its Statement of Defence denied purchasing any vehicle from Plaintiff in 2012. That although it purchased a Toyota Land Cruiser from Plaintiff in 2011, the said vehicle was fully paid for.
That in any event, because the transaction between the parties was in 2011; over six years before this action was instituted in this Court, the instant action is statute barred.
ISSUES
The following issues were set down for determination by the trial Court:
1. Whether or not Plaintiff’s action is statute barred.
2. Whether or not Plaintiff sold the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado with chassis number JTEBX3FJ1BK060975 with registration number GT 6383-12 to the Defendant in 2012.
3. Whether or not the Defendant paid the agreed price of SIXTY-FIVE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED UNITED STATES DOLLARS (US$65,500.00) fully to Plaintiff
4. Whether or not the Plaintiff transferred title of the said vehicle to Defendant.
5. Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to its reliefs.
THE BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL MATTERS
Section 11(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) states as follows:
“For the purposes of this Act, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient to avoid a ruling on the issue against t