XENON IMPEX GHANA LIMITED v. INDUSTRIOUS BEE VENTURES LTD

JUDGMENT

1 Introduction:

[1] Per a writ of summons sealed in this registry on May 18, 2016 the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant the following reliefs:-

1. The recovery of the sum of GH¢911,411.70 from the Defendant being the cost of assorted steel products supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant between the period

8th August 2014 and 6th August 2015.

2. Interest on the said sum at the prevailing commercial lending rate from 6th August 2015 to the date of final payment.

3. Any other relief as the Court may deem meet.

4. Costs including lawyer’s fees assessed at 20% of claim.

The claim of the Plaintiff was met with a statement of defence by the Defendant in which the Plaintiff’s claim was vehemently denied. The Court notes that the with the leave of the Court the Defendant filed an Amended Statement of Defence on June 18, 2018 at the time the trial had already started.

The Parties Case

[2] The Plaintiff pleaded that the Defendant is a Customer of the Plaintiff and sometime in August 2014 it expressed interest in buying a quantity of assorted steel products from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff says by virtue of the relationship, it supplied several steel products to the Defendant on a thirty (30) day credit line arrangement. According to the Plaintiff between 8 August 2014 and 6 August 2015, it had supplied steel products to the Defendant to the tune of GH¢ 2,527,216.70 of which the Defendant had paid only GH¢ 1,615,805.00.

[3] The Plaintiff further pleaded that the debt due and owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as of 6 August 2015 was GH¢ 911,411.70. According to the Plaintiff in June and August 2015, the Defendant issued two National Investment Bank (NIB) cheques with face value of GH¢ 50, 000 and GH¢500,000.00 respectively in the name of the Plaintiff to pay the debts but when they were presented at the Bank both cheques were dishonoured. Plaintiff claims all efforts to retrieve the sum of GH¢ 911,411.70 has proved futile as the Defendant has evinced clear intention not to honour its contractual obligations to the Plaintiff.

[4] The Defendant in its Amended defence filed denied the Plaintiff’s claim and stated that it will put the Plaintiff to strict proof. According to the Defendant “by the VAT invoice and waybill delivered to the Company, out of the goods supplied worth GH¢ 909, 550 between 8th August 2014 to 10th December 2014, it has paid the sum of GH¢ 815, 805 leaving the balance of GH¢ 93, 745.

[5] The Defendan