KAGUIN ENTERPRISES LTD vs. UMARCO (GHANA) LTD [1999]DLCA330

Date	1999-02-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLCA330

OFORI-BOATENG JA

FORSTER JA

ESSILFIE-BONDZIE JA

E K MENSAH (WITH TAGOE) FOR THE APPELLANT.

W A N ADUMUA-BOSSMAN (HOLDING BRIEF FOR JAMES AHENKORAH) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1999]DLCA330
																																						<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:#00B0F0">KAGUIN ENTERPRISES 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:#00B0F0">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:#00B0F0">UMARCO (GHANA) LTD<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 1 GLR 155<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Date: 25 FEBRUARY 1999<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>E K MENSAH (WITH TAGOE) FOR THE APPELLANT.W A N
ADUMUA-BOSSMAN (HOLDING BRIEF FOR JAMES AHENKORAH) FOR THE RESPONDENT.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:OFORI-BOATENG,
FORSTER AND ESSILFIE-BONDZIE JJA___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGMENT OF FORSTER JA.<o:p></o:p>Kaguin Enterprises Ltd and Umarco are both companies incorporated
under the laws of Ghana. In or about July 1989, Kaguin (hereinafter called the
respondents) imported some 4,659.014 metric tonnes of rice from Cargill
International, a company registered in Antigua. When the rice arrived in Ghana
the whole lot was received by Umarco (hereinafter referred to as the
appellants) and stored in the custom bonded warehouse at Tema. There was evidence
that Umarco group of companies worked with Cargill International worldwide.<o:p></o:p>The appellants subsequently released only 700 metric tonnes
(14,000 bags) of the rice to the respondents. The respondents therefore sued
out a writ against the appellants at the High Court, Accra. They claimed the
following reliefs:<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) A declaration that the plaintiff is the owner consignee of
4,659.014 metric tonnes of rice imported from Cargill International, SA Antigua
in or about July 1989. <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) An order upon the defendant to account to the plaintiff for
the 4,659.014 metric tonnes of rice or any portion of the said consignment
disposed of by the defendants. <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) Another order upon the defendants to pay general damages for
conversion.<o:p></o:p>The appellants denied by their statement of defence that they were
liable to the respondents for any of the reliefs sought. On 24 October 1997,
the court presided over by Sapong JA (sitting as an additional High Court
judge) gave judgment for the respondents for all the reliefs claimed. An appeal
to this court by the appellants was lodged on 28 October 1997. Meanwhile on 27
October 1997 the respondents had filled a motion for review of the judgment.
Then on 14 October 1997 Sapong JA heard and granted the respondents’ motion for
review of the very judgment against which an appeal had been filed by the
appellants. It might not be necessary to revisit this issue.<o:p></o:p>The issues raised in the grounds of appeal were fully treated by
both counsel in their respective written submissions. In this judgment, I shall
thus confine myself to the issues as argued in the written submissions. The
first and probably the pivotal issue was whether the respondents were the
owners or consignees for the 4.659,014 metric tonnes of rice. In his judgment
the trial judge, having considered the import of a bill of lading (exhibit 14)
covering the rice, found that the respondents were not described therein as
consignees, but “notify address.” I think he should have been more elaborate.
In the column for particulars of the consignees, the respondents name did not
appear. What did appear on exhibit 14 and other copies, was “To Order.” The
respondents were therefore not named or described in the space as consignees.
It was rather in the space for “notify address” that the respondents’ name and
address appeared.<o:p></o:p>What then is the import of these: “To Order” and “Notify address”?
The trial judge in any case concluded:<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">“In the instant case the “notify address” being the plaintiff
company it was perfectly all right in law for the plaintiff to go and collect
the goods. The plaintiff went forward and did just that. The defendant company
then entering into an agreement with Cargill to do otherwise to deprive the
plaintiff company of the rice is clearly illegal, for the plaintiff company was
not made a party to this agreement. This agreement therefore does not speak
with the voice of law.”<o:p></o:p>