DON BENMING (PLAINTIFF) vs. BENARD BLEWU, BENVIC FOOD PROCESSING & TRADING COMPANY. (DEFENDANT) [2001]DLHC7390

DON BENMING (PLAINTIFF) vs. BENARD BLEWU, BENVIC FOOD PROCESSING & TRADING COMPA... [2001]DLHC7390

Date	2001-06-20
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BC. 150/08
Citation No.	[2001]DLHC7390

HIS LORDSHIP MR. KWASI DAPAA J

BABA AVIO FOR PLAINTIFF.

NELSON AYAMDO FOR ERIC ATIEKU FOR DEFENDANT.

[2001]DLHC7390
																																						<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" >DON BENMING<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BENARD BLEWU, BENVIC FOOD PROCESSING &amp; TRADING COMPANY.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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>BABA
AVIO FOR PLAINTIFF. <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">

NELSON AYAMDO FOR ERIC ATIEKU FOR
DEFENDANT. <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">

HIS LORDSHIP MR. KWASI DAPAA J <o:p></o:p>

</div>This
Court entered judgment on the 4-11-2011 for the plaintiff against the 2
defendants herein for an amount of GH¢32,775.00 with interest at the prevailing
lending bank rate from the 20-03-07 to the date of final payment, and awarded
costs of GH¢2,000.00 to the plaintiff. The defendants feel aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment and have therefore filed an appeal against the
whole of it to have it set aside upon grounds stated in the notice of Appeal as
follows: <o:p></o:p>(a)
The learned trial judge is wrong in law when he ruled that both defendants owe
the plaintiff the same amount of money claimed by the plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>(b)
The learned trial judge erred when he failed to realize that the 1st
defendant/appellant never entered into any transaction with the plaintiff
personally and could therefore not owe the plaintiff personally. <o:p></o:p>(c)
The learned trial judge erred when he ruled that the plaintiff paid the money
for the goods upon agreement with the 1st defendant. <o:p></o:p>(d)
The learned judge erred when he relied on the unsubstantiated evidence of the
plaintiff that the plaintiff's brother guaranteed the payment for the goods for
the defendant's and because of the guarantee the Chinese company sought to
enforce the guarantee against the plaintiff's said brother. <o:p></o:p>(e)
The learned judge is wrong in holding that the payment the plaintiff made is
evidenced in EXHIBIT 'C' tendered by the plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>(f)
The learned trial judge is wrong in holding that both defendants admit that plaintiff
was present and involved in the transfer of the money to the Chinese company. <o:p></o:p>(g)
The learned judge is wrong in holding that the preliminary trial on the issue
of fraud rendered further hearing unnecessary. <o:p></o:p>(h)
The judgment is generally against the weight of evidence led before the court. <o:p></o:p>(i)
Further grounds to be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings." <o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff had in the action instituted on the 27-12-2007 claimed the said
amount from the defendants as an outstanding balance for flavours and machines
sold to the defendant, and an interest thereon from the 20-03-07 to date of
final payment. His case was that he had sold the imported flavours and machines
to the defendants and the 1st defendant had acknowledged his indebtedness to
him for the amount but had failed to pay him in spite of repeated demands made.
The defendants admitted that the 1st defendant had indeed executed 2 separate
documents acknowledging his said indebtedness but made a counterclaim against
the plaintiff for damages for fraud, which they particularized as follows: <o:p></o:p>"(i) The plaintiff knowing very
well that the 1st defendant has no such personal business dealings with the
plaintiff personally and yet making representations to that effect. <o:p></o:p>(ii) The plaintiff deceiving the 1st
defendant to execute a letter of acknowledgment of a debt the plaintiff knew
the defendant never owed to the plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>(iii) The plaintiff making attempts to
get paid by the 1st defendant, knowing very well that the defendant has not had
any business dealings with plaintiff and therefore does not owe the plaintiff
any money. <o:p></o:p>(iv) The plaintiff falsely
representing to the 1st defendant that the plaintiff supplied fo</main>