SPORTNET GHANA LIMITD vs. KRANE INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES & ANOR. [2008]DLCA6974

Date	2008-05-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO.:H1/42/2008
Citation No.	[2008]DLCA6974

PIESARE J.A. [PRESIDING]

KANYOKE J.A.

KISI APPIAH J.A.

THOMAS HUGHES FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

TONY LITHUR FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS

[2008]DLCA6974
																																						<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" >SPORTNET GHANA LIMITD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KRANE INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>THOMAS
HUGHES FOR THE PLAINTIFF/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">

TONY LITHUR FOR THE
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>PIESARE
J.A. [PRESIDING], KANYOKE J.A., KISI APPIAH J.A.<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>PIESARE,
J.A.:<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal brought on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant, upon four grounds of
appeal, to be dealt with in detail in due course. It is a straightforward
appeal which, in our humble opinion, is devoid of any merit whatever. <o:p></o:p>The
facts leading to this appeal are simple. In February, 2007, the
plaintiff/appellant which was not trading in buttons, had won a contract bid
for the supply of buttons to customs, Excise, and Preventive services [CEPS].
Plaintiff/Appellant was therefore introduced to the 1st Defendant/Respondent in
that matter, and the 1st Defendant/Respondent agreed to supply the
Plaintiff/Appellant with such buttons on credit.<o:p></o:p>The
further agreement between the parties, which is not in dispute, is that the
Plaintiff/Appellant was to pay the 1st Defendant/Respondent for the goods, as
soon as CEPS paid the Plaintiff/Appellant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Now, upon this agreement, the 1st
Defendant/Respondent supplied the Plaintiff/Respondent with the required
buttons, at the price of ¢251,549,000.00 plus VAT &amp; NHIL: ¢37,732,350.00,
making a Total of ¢289,291,350.00, upon the Invoice Exhibit ‘A’, dated
22nd February, 2007.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The case of the Respondents was that CEPS paid
the amount to the Plaintiff/Appellant on or about 23rd March, 2007; and instead
of the Plaintiff/Appellant paying the 1st Defendant/Respondent with the amount
received, the Plaintiff/Appellant used the money received from CEPS to finance
a second bid which the Plaintiff/Appellant had won, to supply CEPS with shoes.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Not satisfied with this diversion of funds due
to the 1st Defendant/Respondent, the Managing Director of the
Plaintiff/Appellant proceeded to the 1st Defendant/Respondent, with the view to
negotiate terms of payment of the debt, whereupon the 2nd Defendant/Respondent
Mr. Kaff Deku [the Executive Director] became furious, and seized the
Plaintiff/Appellant’s V.W. Passat Car No. ER.6980 X <o:p></o:p>The
case of the Defendant/Respondents was that the Plaintiff/Appellant itself
voluntarily gave up that car as security for the payment of the debt. <o:p></o:p>This
explanation is unacceptable, having regard to the Respondent’s own letter
Exhibit DAA 2 Dated 16TH April, 2007. This letter was addressed to: THE
CHAIRMAN/CEO SPORTNET GHANA LTD, P. O. BOX 6560, and it read:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“Dear Sir, <o:p></o:p>“INDEBTEDNESS TO KRANE INTERNATIONAL
AGENCIES LTD. <o:p></o:p>“We refer to our invoice number
KIA/001/007 dated 22nd February, 2007 in respect of CEPS Buttons purchased from
us of which payment was made to you about three weeks ago. Your plea on Monday
16th April, 2007 to further defer payment to 15th May, 2007 was not acceptable
and led to the detention of your motor vehicle No. ER. 6989 X <o:p></o:p>We wish to inform you that you are
given up to Monday 25th April, 2007 to make good the total amount of Two
Hundred &amp; Eighty-Nine Million, Two Hundred and Eighty one Thousand, Three
Hundred and Fifty Cedis [¢2809,281,350.00] including 15% VAT and NHIL. <o:p></o:p>Failure of which will compel us to
take a move serious action to recover the said amount. <o:p></o:p>Your swift response will be highly appreciated."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is clear from this letter, that it is not
true that the Plaintiff/Appellant voluntarily gave up that car as security for
the payment of that debt.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Now on receipt of this letter, the
Plaintiff/Appellant still remained adamant, without showing any remorse, or
desire to pay off hesic debt. Instead, the Plaintiff/Appellant went and issued
a Writ of summons against the Respondents herein, claimi</main>