VIVO ENERGY GHANA LIMITED VS EMIPAK COMPANY LIMITED & ORS

This is an application filed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Applicants seeking an order to strike out their names as Defendants to this action.

It is noted that the court intends to resolve the two applications together as they have the same facts, the same parties and similar issues.

I have read the Applications and Affidavits filed by the parties herein.

I have also read the Written Addresses filed by the respective parties.

Consideration has also been given to Order 4 rule 5 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules (C. I. 47). This application is founded on a writ of summons issued against the Defendants herein claiming as follows: a. Recovery of the sum of GH¢909, 663. 11 being the outstanding indebtedness of the petroleum products supplied.

b. Interest on the said sum of GH¢909, 663. 11 at the prevailing bank rate to be calculated from 1st May 2018 to the date of final payment.

c. Costs.

It is the claim of the Plaintiff that they entered into a Shell Card Agreement with the first Defendant for the supply of various petroleum products on credit basis on behalf of 2nd and 3rd Defendants.

Plaintiff claims that 1st Defendant has failed to satisfy the debts accruing from this agreement, which has caused them to be indebted to the Plaintiff for the amount endorsed in the reliefs above.

In response to Plaintiff’s claim, The 1st Defendant denies first and foremost that it acted on the instructions of, or on behalf of 2nd and 3rd Defendants to procure the petroleum products.

They further assert that they have satisfied the debts accruing from the agreement and make further allegations of fraud against the Plaintiffs, counterclaiming as follows: a. An order directing the Plaintiff to pay the loss of GH¢600, 000 incurred by the 1st Defendant as a result of the Plaintiff’s acts.

b. Interest on the said amount at prevailing commercial bank rate to be calculated from February 2018 till date of final payment.

c. Costs.

The 2nd Defendant entered a statement of Defence denying all material averments in the statement of claim.

It is the assertion of the 2nd Defendants herein that there exists no contract between themselves and the Plaintiff, and indeed that the plaintiff and its transactions with the 1st Defendant are foreign to them.

They further deny that the 1st Defendant entered into the contract to supply the petroleum products on their behalf and vehemently deny that the 1st Defendant was acting as their agent when they entered into the agreement.

3