SHATCO (GH) LIMITED vs. KWAPACO LIMITED, RICHARD K. APPIAH [2002]DLCA6969

Date	2002-06-13
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. 59/2001
Citation No.	[2002]DLCA6969

BROBBEY JA (PRESIDING)

GBADEGBE JA.

AMONOO-MONNEY JA.

[2002]DLCA6969
																																						<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" >SHATCO (GH) LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KWAPACO LIMITED, RICHARD K. APPIAH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 59/2001&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; DATE:
13TH JUNE, 2002.<o:p></o:p>

</div>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;<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

BROBBEY JA (PRESIDING), GBADEGBE JA.,
AMONOO-MONNEY JA.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BROBBEY,
JA:<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal from the decision of Benin, JA. Sitting as an additional Justice
of the High Court in which he gave judgment in favour of the
Plaintiff/Respondent.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The case arose out of business transaction
between the Defendant/Appellant and the Respondent. Simply stated, the business
took the form of orders for some goods being made by the Respondent from
overseas; when they arrived in Ghana, the Appellant was to inform the
Respondent of the arrival. The Respondent would then issue an invoice to cover
the goods that have arrived and indeed if there were to be short falls the
Respondent would make good the difference. <o:p></o:p>According
to the Respondent, goods were ordered on invoice Number 101 and 152 on
Appellant’s LPO Numbers 11139 dated 29th June 1994 and 20826 dated 12th January
1995 at the total value of $281,828.25. The goods were delivered. The
Appellants paid $65,675.41 leaving a balance of $216,153.14. It was that amount
that the Respondent sued for. <o:p></o:p>The
case of the Appellants is that the second Appellant developed friendship, love
and trust with the managing director of the Respondent Company. That
relationship resulted in the managing director visiting the offices of the
Appellants and collecting not only rubber stamp but also documents some of
which related to previous transactions and replacing them with fake ones. It
was through the use of those fake documents that the Respondents laid claim to
goods allegedly supplied to the appellants but which in fact had not been
supplied. <o:p></o:p>The
Appellants accused the Managing Director of breach of trust by the unauthorized
use of the rubber stamp and documents. They further accused him of fraud, the
particulars of which they gave as follows:—<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Obtaining blank copies of the Appellant’s
letter-heads,<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;Using the letter-heads to clear goods from
Togo,<o:p></o:p>iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;Using the letter-heads to write letters
purporting them to have been written by the second Appellant.<o:p></o:p>iv.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;Using the documents to claim from the
Appellants goods which the appellants had never applied for. <o:p></o:p>It
was part of the case of the appellants that they never received the goods that
formed the subject matter of the Respondent’s claims but that all the goods
supplied to them were paid for. <o:p></o:p>