SWISS AFRICAN TRADE CO. v. HASNEM ENT. LTD
1999
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- LAMPTEY, JA. (PRESIDING)
- WOOD (MRS.), JA.
- BROBBEY, JA
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
1999
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Hasnem Co. entered into a contract with S.A.T. to buy six chairs in 1977. Four chairs were never delivered, prompting a lawsuit for specific performance. The trial court awarded damages instead, which was upheld by the High Court. S.A.T.'s appeal to a higher court failed. The courts ruled that amendments to pleadings could be made to avoid multiple actions and that damages could be awarded even if not originally sought, as specific performance was deemed inappropriate for non-ascertained goods.
JUDGMENT
LAMPTEY, JA.
The facts that led to the mounting of the action in the instant appeal are fairly simple and straight forward. These are that Hasnem Co’s. Manager entered the premises of S.A.T. in Sekondi bought and paid for 6 chairs on 16th August 1997. He took immediate delivery of 2 chairs and was advised by the storekeeper of S.A.T. to send a vehicle at his expense to collect the four remaining “executive swivel secretarial chairs” the following day. Accordingly, a vehicle was sent to S.A.T. the next day to collect and take delivery of the four special chairs. The driver was sent back without the four chairs. After several fruitless and disappointing journeys, needless to add time consuming and expensive journeys and when it became obvious that S.A.T. was in no position to honour and perform its obligation under the agreement Hasnem sued S.A.T. on 16th June 1989, that is, after a period of ten years had elapsed. It claimed an order of specific performance directed at S.A.T. as claimed and stated in its writ of summons. The case was heard on the merits. The trial magistrate entered judgment for Hasnem. In place of an order for specific performance which was the relief sought by the summons he ordered S.A.T. to pay damages in the sum of ¢1.5 million to Hasnem Co. together with costs. S.A.T. Co. was dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgment. It appealed to the High Court, Cape Coast. The appeal was heard on the merits. The appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the District Court. It is against the judgment of the High Court, Cape Coast that S.A.T. Co. appealed further to this court on eight grounds of appeal and one additional ground of appeal.
Before I deal with the appeal in the merits, I must consider an issue of law raised, in limine, by counsel for Hasnem Co. The issue was formulated as follows:
“In response to paragraph 2 …….. It is submitted that to the extent that no leave of the court was sought and granted to argue additional grounds of appeal filed on 30th October 1998, the court should ignore all the arguments purported to be advanced in support of the said additional grounds of appeal”
In reply, counsel for S.A.T. Co. stated that by consent of lawyers for the parties herein, the Court of Appeal had ruled that the additional grounds filed without leave of the Court be admitted to form part of the record of appeal. He did not exhibit a certified true copy of the said ruling of this Court in support of his