SOCIÈTÈ DE PROMOTION DE LA PACHE vs. THE OWNER & PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE SHIP OR VESSEL M/V HILDA A [2000]DLCA491

SOCIÈTÈ DE PROMOTION DE LA PACHE vs. THE OWNER & PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE SHIP... [2000]DLCA491

Date	2000-05-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2000]DLCA491

LAMPTEY JA

BENIN JA

TWUMASI JA

AMATEIFIO FOR THE APPELLANT.

DR SETH TWUM FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2000]DLCA491
																																						<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">SOCIÈTÈ DE PROMOTION DE LA PACHE<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">THE OWNER &amp; PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE SHIP OR VESSEL M/V
HILDA A<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 2 GLR 79<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AMATEIFIO 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">

DR SETH TWUM FOR THE
RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Lamptey JA. <o:p></o:p>On 18 June 1993, Societè de Promotion de la Pache (hereinafter
referred to as the plaintiff company) sued the owners and parties interested in
the ship or vessel M/V Hilda A (hereinafter referred to as the defendant
company) and claimed the reliefs stated in the writ of summons. A statement of
claim running into six paragraphs was annexed to the writ of summons. In
addition to the statement of claim, three bills of lading in the original were
annexed to the writ of summons. On the date of sealing the writ of summons,
lawyers acting for the plaintiff company filed a motion on notice for the
arrest of the vessel, M/V Hilda A. The defendant company entered appearance on
25 June 1993 and its lawyer filed an affidavit opposing the application for the
arrest of the vessel, Hilda A which was at that date berthed at Tema. The
defendant company acting by its lawyers filed a statement of defence on 23 July
1993. This statement of defence ran into 21 paragraphs. The defendant company
did not counterclaim for any relief.<o:p></o:p>The record of appeal shows that it was the defendant company that
set down additional issues for trial in the summons for directions filed on 11
October 1993. I did not find the summons for directions filed on behalf of the
plaintiff company in the record of appeal. Be that as it may, the reliefs
sought by the plaintiff company were formulated and clearly itemised in its
amended statement of claim. After a hearing on the merits, the trial judge
dismissed the whole of the plaintiff company’s claim and awarded costs against
it. The plaintiff company was dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgment and
appealed to this court on a number of grounds of appeal.<o:p></o:p>In order to appreciate and understand the issues of law raised and
argued in this appeal, I am of the view that the reliefs sought by the
plaintiff company must be reproduced in full, especially since the defendant
company did not counterclaim for any relief. The plaintiff claimed the reliefs
following:<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 discharge in Tema of fish consigned by
the plaintiff to parties in Abidjan and Lagos is wrongful. <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 deliver the fish consigned to
parties in Abidjan and Lagos. <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 the alternative, an order upon the defendant to release the
said fish to the plaintiff subject to the cost of freight to the respective
destinations of Abidjan and Lagos. <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) Damages for wrongful conversion. <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) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from
discharging 1782.30 tonnes of fish at Tema. <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) Quia timet injunction. <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) An order upon the defendant to pay all the plaintiff’s total
and other expenses incidental to defendants’ wrongful, appropriation of the
plaintiff’s fish . . .”<o:p></o:p>The case of the plaintiff company briefly and simply stated is
that the defendant company entered into an agreement, evidenced by three
separate bills of lading, with the plaintiff company under and by which the
defendant’s vessel, Hilda A was to accept for carriage by sea</main>