YUNGDONG INDUSTRIES LTD. (PLT/RESP/CROSS APP.) vs. RORO SERVICES (DEFT/RESP.) EUN MONK BANG & ANOR. [2004]DLCA6787

YUNGDONG INDUSTRIES LTD. (PLT/RESP/CROSS APP.) vs. RORO SERVICES (DEFT/RESP.) EU... [2004]DLCA6787

Date	2004-05-28
Suit No.	HI/110/2004
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA6787

ARYEETEY JA

ANINAKWAH JA

QUAYE JA

[2004]DLCA6787
																																						<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" >YUNGDONG
INDUSTRIES LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLT/RESP/CROSS
APP.)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>RORO
SERVICES<o:p></o:p>(DEFT/RESP.)<o:p></o:p>EUN MONK
BANG &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>(CO-DEFTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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">

ARYEETEY JA, ANINAKWAH JA, QUAYE 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">

</div>QUAYE,
JA <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs/respondents/cross appellants (herein simply mentioned as plaintiffs)
were consignees of goods consigned to them by certain commercial houses in
Korea, namely Ilseki Company Limited, Hanla Tyre Company Limited and Leebo
Products Limited, who were the consignors. The goods were consigned through two
banks in Ghana, the Standard Chartered Bank and the National Investment Bank.
The bills of lading were received by the plaintiffs through the said banks upon
the issue of execution of bills of exchange of ninety days duration. The
plaintiffs accepted the terms of payment and actually cleared part of the goods
from the defendants, leaving goods in eighteen containers comprising mainly
re-treaded tyres to be collected at a later date. When the plaintiff
subsequently approached the defendants/respondents (now simply called the
defendants) for the delivery of the remainder of the goods to them, the latter
who were agents of the ship owner or shippers of the goods, informed the
plaintiffs that the consignor companies had varied their consignment of the
goods in favour of the original co-defendants a company operating in Ghana
under the name Seo Kwang (GH) Limited as consignees. Upon this development the
defendants refused to release the remaining eighteen containers of goods to the
plaintiffs who then instituted action in the High Court, where they won. Before
the trial ended however, Seo Kwang (Ghana) Limited who had applied and been
joined as co-defendants had subsequently discontinued and been struck-out on
30th July 1977 as party to the action. It was after Seo Kwang (Gh) Limited had
withdrawn that the present appellants applied and were joined as 1st and 2nd
co-defendants by an order of the court given on 18th March 1998. After the
joinder the Co-defendants/appellants (simply called herein the co-defendants)
took part effectively in the trial. The trial High Court judgment given on 15th
May 2002 dissatisfied the co-defendants, hence the herein appeal.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The appeal was fought on four main grounds,
that is:— <o:p></o:p>(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The judgment is against the weight of
evidence, <o:p></o:p>(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The trial judge failed to give adequate
consideration to the case of the Co-Defendants/Appellants; <o:p></o:p>(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The trial judge erred in law in deciding
that the Co-Defendant failed to establish any title to the goods, the subject-matter
of the suit; <o:p></o:p>(iv)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The trial judge erred in law in deciding
that on</main>