STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. ADDO [1977]DLCA1429

Date	1977-07-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLCA1429

SOWAH JA

KINGSLEY-NYINAH JA

FRANCOIS J.A.

BOAFO FOR THE APPELLANTS.

DR. S. K. DATE-BAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1977]DLCA1429
																																						<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" >STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ADDO <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1977]1 GLR 77<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:
6 JULY 1976<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">

BOAFO FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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">

SOWAH, KINGSLEY-NYINAH AND FRANCOIS
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>It is unfortunate
and highly undesirable that this appeal should turn on procedural matters
rather than on merits, but the mischief was initiated by the respondent and in
my view, there is no way of correcting it without giving blessing to the
misinterpretation of Order 19, r. 14 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
1954 (L.N. 140A).<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff instituted an action claiming the sum of ¢1,865.87 being one per cent
commission due to him on a total sum of ¢186,587.79 representing the value of
cheques collected by him and paid over to the defendant corporation. In a long
statement of claim which I am obliged to reproduce almost in full as the action
was fought on pleadings, the plaintiff stated:<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) In
return for the act of collecting such debts, the defendant promised to pay the
plaintiff a commission of one per centum on all collections that the plaintiff
would make. <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">(4) The
plaintiff transacted business with the defendant corporation on these terms
till 30 May 1971, when one Mr. R. A. Ennuson, acting chief accountant of the
defendant corporation, acting for and on behalf of the defendant corporation,
ordered the plaintiff to stop collecting government debts from government
ministries and departments for the corporation. <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">(5)
Before the date of the said order, however, the plaintiff had already, at
considerable cost to himself, distributed invoices to various debtors of the
defendant corporation. <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">(6) After
the date of the order aforesaid, the plaintiff collected cheques drawn by the
above-mentioned debtors in payment of debts owed on the invoices distributed by
the plaintiff before the date of the order aforementioned. <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">(7) These
cheques were handed over to the defendant corporation who accepted them and has
since received payment on those cheques to the total sum of ¢186,587.79. <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">(8) In
spite of having taken the benefit of the plaintiff’s services, the defendant
corporation has flagrantly refused to pay to the plaintiff his due commission,
despite the plaintiff’s repeated demands. <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">(9)
Wherefore the plaintiff claims as per his writ of summons.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant corporation admitted paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the statement of
claim and proceeded inter alia:<o:p></o:p>“(2) The
defendants deny paragraph (4) of the statement of claim but say that acting
through their official, the said Mr. R. A. Ennuson they terminated the
plaintiff’s authority to collect debts on behalf of the defendants from
government ministries and departments with effect from 30 May 1971. (3) The
defendants are not in a position to admit or deny the averments contained in
paragraph (5) of the statement of claim but will contend that if the averments
are correct (which are not admitted) the plaintiff was under the terms of the
contract not entitled to any or at all reimbursement of the cost of carrying on
his part of the contract. (4) The defendants admit that after the termination
of the plaintiff ‘s authority, the plaintiff presented to the defendants some
cheques from some debtors but say that they are not in a position to admit or
deny that the cheques came from debtors to whom the plaintiff distributed any
invoices or at all.”<o:p></o:p>