HADMORIS CO. LTD. vs. F. Y. KYERE [2002]DLCA6485

Date	2002-07-04
Suit No.	CA/NO. 52/2002
Citation No.	[2002]DLCA6485

WOOD JA (PRESIDING)

GBADEGBE JA.

AKOTO-BAMFOR JA

[2002]DLCA6485
																																						<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" >HADMORIS CO. LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>F. Y. KYERE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CA/NO. 52/2002&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 4TH JULY 2002<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:-.1in">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt;
text-align:justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">CORAM: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt;
text-align:justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">WOOD
JA (PRESIDING), GBADEGBE JA., AKOTO-BAMFOR JA.<o:p></o:p>

</div><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:-.1in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:
6.0pt;text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;
mso-border-between:1.5pt solid windowtext;mso-padding-between:1.0pt">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>GBADEGBE,
JA The
question my lords which confronts us in this appeal is whether the learned
trial judge was right in awarding interest on the sum of twenty nine million
cedis only and not on the entire amount of fifty four million cedis which was
indorsed on the writ of summons which initiated the action in the court below?
In this delivery, for the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties as
they were described in the court below. In the judgment with which we are
concerned in this appeal, the learned trial judge limited the interest which he
awarded to the amount in respect of which he entered judgment in the course of
the proceedings at page 12 of the record in the following words: <o:p></o:p>“Judgment for
plaintiff in the sum of ¢29, 000,000.00. Costs of 5 million cedis to plaintiff.
Court defers question of interest to parties to negotiate. Adjourned to
15/3/2000.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The said entry of judgment was preceded by the
payment into court by the defendant of the sum of twenty five million cedis, it
being part of the claim indorsed on the writ of summons initiating the action.
On the day that the parties appeared before the learned trial judge for the
issue of interest to be decided by the court after listening to the respective
counsel, he awarded interest at the prevailing bank rate and expressed it to be
in respect of twenty nine million cedis. In their complaint before us the
plaintiffs have raised the following grounds: <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:
-.1in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the court
failed or refused to award interest on the whole amount of ¢54,000,000.00
claimed by the plaintiff and awarded interest in part on ¢29,000,000.00 <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:
-.1in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The ¢25,000,000.00
that the court did not award interest thereon is unreasonable and not known to
the rules.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I have examined the respective statements
submitted to us by the parties through their counsel and I am of the view that
the learned trial judge erred by not awarding the interest on the entire sum
claimed. I think that the discretion which is bestowed on him under the law
namely The Courts (Award of Interest) Instrument (LI 1295) should have been in
respect of the entire amount for which the plaintiff was compelled to claim in
his indorsement once the said amount was found due by the court to it. In my view
this is clearly borne out by the formulation in the said instrument which
reads: <o:p></o:p>"Where in any
civil cause or matter the Court makes an order for the payment of interest on
any sum due to the plaintiff other than any sum claimed by the plaintiff under Order
13 rule 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules, 1954 (LN 140A) the rate
shall be payable at the Bank rate prevailing at the time the order was made by
the Court, but no compound interest shall be awarded." <o:p></o:p>I wish to say that
from the proceedings before us it is quite clear in view of the course of
conduct which the defendant took resulting in the entry of judgment against him
that he had as it were admitted the claim made against him contained in the
plaintiff's demand and therefore he is deemed to have admitted the pleadings on
which the claim was based that he had received the amounts from the farmers but
refused to pay the same over to the plaintiff, a situation which in the words
of Herschel LC in London, Chatham and Dover Railway Co v South Eastern Railway
Co [1893] AC 429 @ 437 justifies an award of interest. In his words which were
approved by Acquah J. (as he then was) in the case of Heloo v Tettey [1992] 2
GLR 112 @ 123 he said: <o:p></o:p>