SUPER PAPER PRODUCTS CO. LTD v. KYOMATSU TRADING CO LTD. & ORS

OFOE,J.A.

The plaintiff is a Ghanaian registered company. 1st and 3rd defendants are Chinese registered companies. The 4th defendant was the Managing Director of the plaintiff companies at the same time the Managing Director of the 3rd defendant company. As for the 2nd defendant it is the case of the plaintiff that he was falsely put up, with his knowledge, by the 4th defendant as the Managing Director of the 1st defendant company but behind the scenes it was the 4th defendant who was in charge of that company. The main allegation of the plaintiff is that the 4th defendant in his dual position as Managing Director of these two companies and with the influence that he had over the 1st defendant company manipulated all these Chinese companies and succeeded in defrauding the plaintiff company of several millions of dollars. The 4th defendant had the collaboration of the 1st and 2nd defendants in perpetrating this fraud. The plaintiff’s allegation continued, that the fraud was perpetuated through over invoicing and double pricing of machinery and equipment that the plaintiff bought from the 1st and 2nd defendant on the advice of the 4th defendant. It was to seek redress in claiming these monies that were fraudulently paid in excess to the 1st and 2nd defendant that it went to court seeking to set aside the contract, exhibit A, that formed the basis of the transaction and retrieve any monies overpaid to the defendants.

The brief facts of this case can be stated as follows:

The plaintiff on the advice of its managing director, the 4th defendant, agreed to expand its products from producing toilet rolls to include other paper products. This expansion required acquisition of additional machinery and equipment which initially was to be procured through finance sourced by 3rd defendant company. When all approvals from the relevant governmental agencies had been procured for the importation of the said equipment and machinery and an agreement exhibit B had been signed between the plaintiff and the 3rd and 4th defendants for the supply of these machinery, the 4th defendant disclosed to the plaintiff company that the 3rd defendant was no longer able to discharge its duty procuring the funds for the import of the required machinery and equipment for the plaintiff. The 4th defendant recommended another Chinese company to take over this duty of sourcing for funds from the 3rd defendant. The recommended company was the 1st defendant company. This was accepted by the pla