R. T. BRISCOE (GHANA) LTD vs. ESSIEN [1962]DLHC1692

Date	1962-04-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1692

CHARLES J.

E. B. GAISIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

A. ERSKINE FOR GILES HUNT & CO. FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1962]DLHC1692
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">R. T. BRISCOE (GHANA) LTD <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">ESSIEN <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 265<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 10TH APRIL, 1962.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

E.
B. GAISIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

A.
ERSKINE FOR GILES HUNT &amp; CO. FOR THE DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

CHARLES J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
CHARLES J.<o:p></o:p>This is an application made under rule 1 of Order 14 for leave to
sign judgment for the sum of £G17,748 14s. being the amount claimed by the
plaintiffs from the defendant for value of equipments and cash advances given
to the defendant against supply of logs which the defendant failed to supply.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendant opposes this application and is relying on the
defence filed on his behalf on the 5th March, 1962. Paragraph 5 of the defence
reads as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“While the defendant was performing his obligation under the
contract, namely, still supplying logs exclusively to the plaintiffs at prices
agreed by the plaintiffs, legislation came into force which declared Ghana
Timber Marketing Board the sole buyer of Ghana wawa and redwoods. The
performance of the said contract was thus rendered impossible and subsequently
both the plaintiffs and defendant were discharged by frustration.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By section 9 of an executive instrument, No. 87 of 1960 dated the
23rd February, 1961, it was provided that: “The Board shall purchase all timber
offered which is graded as suitable for export.” “Timber” is defined in the
said instrument as follows: “timber means Wawa (Triplochiton Scleroxylon)”. By
executive instrument No. 92 of 1961, dated the 12th June 1961, “timber” is
defined as follows: `”timber”’ means any species of timber whether log or
lumber,” By regulation 1 of legislative instrument, No. 130 of 1961 (Trees and
Timber (Control of Export Logs) Regulations, 1961) the Ghana Marketing Board
was made the sole exporter of logs in Ghana and regulation 5 makes it an
offence for anyone to contravene the provisions of this regulation.<o:p></o:p>If the defendant can rightly contend that his contract to supply
the logs has been frustrated by legislation then it behoves me to consider the
legal effect of the Contracts Act, 1960.1(1) The insufficiency of the rules of
the common law governing the consequences of frustration was clearly
established by the Fibrosa case,2(2) so the English Parliament considered it
expedient to enact the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act, 19433(3) to make
provision for an equitable apportionment of prepaid moneys. The Contracts Act,
1960, hereinafter referred to as “the Act” is almost in pari materia with the
Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act, 1943, except for some slight variations
and omissions. The contract between the plaintiffs and defendant is one to
which section 1, subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Act are relevant for
the purpose of deciding this matter.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(1) Where a contract to which this Part applies has become impossible
of performance or been otherwise frustrated and the parties thereto have for
that reason been discharged from the further performance of the contract the
following provisions of this section shall, subject to sections 2 and 3 of this
Act, have effect in relation thereto. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2) Subject to subsection (3), all sums paid or payable to any
party in pursuance to the contract before the time when the parties were so
discharged (in this Part referred to as “the time of discharge”) shall, in the
case of sums so paid, be recoverable from him, and in the case of sums so
payable, cease to be so payable. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(3) Where a party has incurred expenses before the time of
discharge in, or for the purpose of, the performance of the contract, the Court
may allow him to recover or to retain out of any sum received by him under the
contract, amount (if any), not exceeding the expenses so incurred or the total
sum payable to him under the contract, such as the Court may consider just
having regard to all the circumstances of the case. (4) In estimating, for the
purposes of the foregoing provisions of this section, the amount of any
exp</main>