SPORTNET GHANA LIMITD vs. KRANE INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES & ANOR.

In February 2007, the Plaintiff/Appellant, not previously trading in buttons, won a contract to supply buttons to the Customs, Excise, and Preventive Services (CEPS). The Plaintiff/Appellant was introduced to the 1st Defendant/Respondent who agreed to supply the buttons on credit, with payment due upon receipt of funds from CEPS. The 1st Defendant supplied buttons invoiced at ¢289,291,350.00 including VAT and NHIL. CEPS paid the Plaintiff/Appellant, but the Plaintiff/Appellant allegedly diverted the funds to finance another contract for supplying shoes to CEPS. When the Plaintiff/Appellant failed to pay the debt, the 2nd Defendant seized the Plaintiff/Appellant's vehicle as security, which the Plaintiff/Appellant contested, claiming wrongful detention and loss of use of the vehicle.

PIESARE, J.A.: This is an appeal brought on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant, upon four grounds of appeal, to be dealt with in detail in due course. It is a straightforward appeal which, in our humble opinion, is devoid of any merit whatever. The facts leading to this appeal are simple. In February, 2007, the plaintiff/appellant which was not trading in buttons, had won a contract bid for the supply of buttons to customs, Excise, and Preventive services [CEPS]. Plaintiff/Appellant was therefore introduced to the 1st Defendant/Respondent in that matter, and the 1st Defendant/Respondent agreed to supply the Plaintiff/Appellant with such buttons on credit. The further agreement between the parties, which is not in dispute, is that the Plaintiff/Appellant was to pay the 1st Defendant/Respondent for the goods, as soon as CEPS paid the Plaintiff/Appellant. Now, upon this agreement, the 1st Defendant/Respondent supplied the Plaintiff/Respondent with the required buttons, at the price o...