October 9, 2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, a wholesale food supplier, sued two customers, Millicent Tiwaah and Esther Zanoo, for unpaid balances on rice and oil supplied on credit secured by post-dated cheques. After consolidation, the Accra High Court (Commercial Division) found both defendants issued cheques that were duly presented and dishonored, triggering immediate rights under the Bills of Exchange Act, 1961 (Act 55). Relying on Supreme Court authority that bills are enforced like cash absent fraud, duress, illegality or failure of consideration, the court held the plaintiff entitled to recover GH225,145 from Tiwaah and GH249,642 from Zanoo with interest. Tiwaahs defenses based on alleged seizure and sale of trucks and shop goods failed for want of proof and because ledger entries showed credits; Zanoos liability was established by her own post-dated security cheque and ledger records. The court characterized plaintiffs publications as justified demand notices, and awarded nominal damages of GH10,000 plus costs of GH8,000 against each defendant.
1.0 Background
1.1 The judgment relates to two suits that the plaintiff commenced separately against the defendants. Upon application during the case management conference, the two suits were consolidated for trial.
1.2 Plaintiff is a company that deals in wholesale supply of food items. Defendants are customers of plaintiff. On grounds of alleged breach of payment terms of goods supplied on credit arising from post-dated cheques that defendants issued, which upon presentation were returned and unpaid, plaintiff by writ of summons on 10 June 2016 commenced the two suits separately against defendants for recovery of the unpaid balances on the supplied goods.
1.3 Plaintiff’s claim against Millicent Tiwaah (MT) is for recovery of GH¢225,145, whilst the suit against Esther Zanoo (EZ) is for recovery of GH¢249,642 being unpaid goods plaintiff supplied on credit, for which payment by postdated cheques were returned unpaid. Except for the differing sum amounts in the suits, plaintiff’s reliefs, indeed consequential reliefs are the same. They are: damages for breach of contract, interest on the sums, as well as legal and solicitors’ costs
1.4 Following the parties’ inability to settle at the pretrial settlement conference, the two suits were on 8 March 2018 referred to this court for trial by the Administrator of the Court. As I have stated just above, upon application at the case management conference, the court ordered for their consolidation for trial.
2.0 Parties’ case
2.1 Plaintiff’s case
According to plaintiff, since November 2008, it had agreed to supply defendants with quantities of rice and oil on credit upon drawing of post-dated checks as security. According to plaintiff, it was a term that
payments for the goods supplied shall be made within 30 days upon delivery. That is, the postdated cheques shall clear within the 30 days after their issue. Plaintiff’s claim is that the cheques that defendants issued for payment of the goods supplied were dishonored upon presentation, and that in April 2015 it lodged complaint on the matter with the police, upon whose assistance, it managed to recover GH¢5,000 on 4 May 2015 from MT, leaving her indebtedness as at 4 May 2015 to be GH¢225,145, which sum had remained unpaid up to date despite several reminders.
With respect to EZ, plaintiff’s claim is that EZ could not pay anything despite its complaint to the police on her returned unpaid cheque, and that EZ’s indebtedness to plaintiff stands at GH¢249,642 as