PEDEBOH vs. GHANA TIMBER COMPANY [1964]DLSC1943

Date	1964-02-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1943

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN JSC

MILLS-ODOI J.S.C.

APALOO J.

SAMPSON BAIDOO FOR THE APPELLANT.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS.

[1964]DLSC1943
																																						<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" >PEDEBOH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>GHANA TIMBER COMPANY <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 134<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
29 FEBRAURY 1964.<o:p></o:p>

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

SAMPSON BAIDOO FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

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

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN AND MILLS-ODOI JJ.S.C.
AND APALOO J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo J.
delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal from the judgment of the
High Court, Sekondi, delivered on 22 December 1961. In that suit, the court
entered judgment for the plaintiff-respondent firm (hereinafter called the firm)
against the defendant-appellant (hereinafter called the defendant) for the sum
of £G502 10s.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff is a firm carrying on business at Takoradi. The evidence shows that
its business is that of purchasing timber for export. The defendant is a timber
contractor and was, at the time material to this case, resident at Bibiani. It
would seem that he was not in business in a large way and clearly had no means
of transport. One Kwesi Nifah normally carted and sold his timber for him and
it would seem, the sales were usually made to the plaintiff firm. The firm
learnt of the defendant from Nifah and according to the defendant, expressed a
desire to see him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
evidence shows that the defendant called on the firm in December 1959 and a
rather informal sort of agreement was entered into. It seems to have been oral
only and the substance of the agreement appears to be that the firm was to
advance the defendant moneys from time to time in return for which the
defendant was to supply the firm with timber. It was not until 14 January 1960
that a written and signed record was made of that agreement. It was tendered
and admitted in evidence as exhibit B.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>However,
by that date, the statement of accounts (exhibit A) shows that the firm had
already made advances to the defendant in the total sum of five hundred and
ninety odd pounds (£G590). The defendant in his turn, supplied logs to the firm
to an amount almost equivalent to the advances he had received with the result
that by that date, namely, 14 January 1960 he was in debit in the books of the
firm, in the sum, if my arithmetic is correct, of sixty odd pounds (£G60). On
14 January 1960, the firm made further advances to the defendant so that his
total indebtedness to the firm stood at two hundred and eighty-six pounds ten
shillings (£G286 10s.).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant obviously accepted as correct that state of the accounts and
subscribed his signature to the agreement (exhibit B) which recites his
indebtedness. It would seem that the defendant was at that time engaged in
conveying some logs to Takoradi. It was stipulated by the firm and assented to
by the defendant in the agreement that those logs were to be hammer-stamped
“G.T.” (which I assume are the initials of the plaintiff firm) and delivered to
the firm in payment of the said debt. This aspect of the matter is important as
it provides the basis for the firm’s claim against the defendant for specific
performance and damages for breach of contract and the defendant’s counterclaim
for damages for trespass.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant claimed that he entered into yet another parol contract with the firm
by which he promised to supply the latter with the species of timber known as
hardwood from a timber concession which he called Ampeni Manso Concession. In
consideration for that promise, the defendant claimed that the firm for its
part, promised to advance him from time to time, such moneys as he would
require to develop the concession including such ancillary matters as the
construction of access roads and the purchase of means of transport. The
defendant claimed in the court below that the firm committed a breach of that
contract and had wrongfully trespassed on a number of logs which he had sold to
a rival timber company called Fynhout. Accordingly, he counterclaimed for
damages against the firm. The firm resisted this claim and denied the existence
of the parol contract alleged by the defendant.<o:p></o:p>