SCANSHIP GHANA LTD vs. EFFASCO LTD [1999]DLCA489

Date	1999-01-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLCA489

SAPONG JA

ESSILFIE-BONDZIE JA

BADDOO JA

S AMARTEIFIO (WITH HIM MRS EWOOL) FOR THE APPELLANT.

K PAINTSIL (WITH HIM KOFI ACKAH) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1999]DLCA489
																																						<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">SCANSHIP 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:#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">EFFASCO LTD<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 1 GLR 448<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">DATE: 28
JANUARY 1999<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>S AMARTEIFIO (WITH HIM MRS EWOOL) FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

K PAINTSIL (WITH HIM KOFI
ACKAH) FOR THE RESPONDENT. <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 1.0pt 0in">

SAPONG, ESSILFIE-BONDZIE AND
BADDOO JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF SAPONG JA.<o:p></o:p>At the court below the plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred
to as the respondents) took action against the defendant-appellants
(hereinafter referred to as the appellants) for:<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">&nbsp;“(1) The sum Of fifty-seven
thousand five hundred and seven pounds sterling (£57,507) being the C &amp; F
value of cargo shipped and consigned to the plaintiffs on vessel MN Rep Di
Genova voyage 6355 from Tilbury, England on 14 April 1992 per bill of lading No
TC 5011 dated 14 April 1992 which the defendants as carrier’s agents failed to
deliver to the plaintiffs when the vessel arrived on 12 May 1992. <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) Damages of two hundred thousand pounds (£200,000) for
negligence or fundamental breach of contract of carriage or both on the part of
the carrier and its accredited agents, Sequana Maritime Ltd, who acted as
shippers and freight forwarders and on behalf of the carrier. <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) Loss of use of two road rollers from 22 May 1992 till the date
of judgment at the rate of 4120,000 per day.”<o:p></o:p>Succinctly put, the facts of the case are: The plaintiffs by a
bill of lading No TC 5011 wherein the goods of the plaintiffs were named,
contracted with the owners of MV Rep Di Genova to ship the said goods from the
Port of Tilbury in England to Tema in Ghana. The carrier’s agents in England
were Sequana Maritime Ltd and they issued the bill of lading, exhibit D. The
defendants are the local agents of the carrier, namely G &amp; C Lines. The
defendants sent arrival notice to the plaintiffs describing the cargo as
contained in the ship’s manifest. And when the ship arrived at Tema on 12 March
1992 the plaintiffs cargo was not on board.<o:p></o:p>When the case was heard at the court below, judgment was given in
favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants being dissatisfied with the said
judgment, have appealed to this court for redress. The grounds of appeal filed
are:<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">“(a) The learned trial judge misconstrued the terms of the
contract between the parties and thereby erred in law by holding that the plaintiffs’
loss had arisen as a result of a breach of contract on the post of 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">(b) The learned trial judge by failing to apply the provisions of
the Hague Rules erred in law by applying the wrong principles in the assessment
of damages and as a result assessed the plaintiffs’ damages so high as to
result in an entirely erroneous estimate in the damages to which the plaintiffs
are entitled. <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">(c) The judgment is against the weight of evidence. <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">(d) The costs of ¢6 million awarded by the leamed trial judge were
manifestly excessive in all the circumstances of the case. <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">(e) Other grounds to be filed later.”<o:p></o:p>The other grounds are the additional grounds of appeal filed. And
these are:<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) The learned</main>