SPINTEX LTD. v. EVANS ATTA-EDUA

MARFUL-SAU JA:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Accra dated the 31st October 2008, dismissing the plaintiff action and entering judgment for the defendant on his counterclaim. The plaintiff is thus the appellant herein and the defendant is the respondent. The appellant per the writ issued on 28-1-93 claimed the following:-

Recovery of an amount of ¢110,175,349.74

Interest at the current bank rate from 31/7/92 to date of final payment

General damages for breach of contract

In a terse statement of claim of 7 paragraphs, the appellant simply alleged that it supplied goods to the respondent between August 1990 to July 1992 worth ¢203,656,469.08. However, in July 1992 when the respondent’s account was audited his indebtedness stood at ¢110,175,349.74. The appellant further averred that the respondent had failed to settle the said indebtedness notwithstanding repeated demands.

The respondent disputed the claim and filed a 28 paragraph statement of defence and counterclaimed for the following:

The sum of ¢6,772,000 being an amount wrongfully withheld by the plaintiff since November 1992.

Interest on the said sum at the prevailing bank rate from November 1992 till the date of final payment.

By respondent’s defence and counterclaim the appellant was compelled to file a 9 paragraph reply and defence to the counterclaim which was later amended on 18-8-95: From the pleadings exchanged by the parties it is obvious that the appellant in his statement of claim suppressed material facts which formed the basis of the dispute. As the pleadings showed the amount claimed by the appellant was not a simple debt arising out of goods supplied and unpaid. Rather the real facts were that the appellant’s Chief Accountant one Isaac Forson in the course of respondent’s dealings with the appellant company, had instructed the respondent to be paying the cost of his supplies to him, the Chief Accountant, so that respondent’s orders would be processed promptly. As a result the respondent was prevailed upon by the Chief Accountant and he paid cash and issued corresponding cheques to the Chief Accountant as payment for his orders. Respondent after tendering the cash and corresponding cheques to the Chief Accountant continued to receive his supplies without any problems, till in July 1992 when his account was audited and it came to light that the Chief Accountant was not crediting the respondent account with the cash. When the cheques issued to the Chief Acc