AKUABA TOURIST LTD. AND RIVER PARK TRAVEL LTD. (PLAINTIFFS) vs. GHANA NATIONAL HAJJ COUNCIL AND 5 OTHERS (DEFENDANTS) [2008]DLHC7384

AKUABA TOURIST LTD. AND RIVER PARK TRAVEL LTD. (PLAINTIFFS) vs. GHANA NATIONAL H... [2008]DLHC7384

Date	2008-02-06
Suit No.	SUIT NO. AC 52/2007
Citation No.	[2008]DLHC7384

VICTOR OFOE J. SITTING AS JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2008]DLHC7384
																																						<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" >AKUABA TOURIST LTD. AND RIVER PARK TRAVEL LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA NATIONAL HAJJ COUNCIL AND 5 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK/AUTOMATED
DIVISION), 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">SUIT
NO. AC 52/2007 &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 6TH
FEBRUARY, 2008.<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">

VICTOR OFOE, J. SITTING AS JUSTICE OF
THE HIGH COURT <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>The
case started with 6 defendants. But on application of defendant's counsel, the
2nd to 6th defendants were struck out as unnecessary parties. Phyllis Kumah
represented and in fact testified for the plaintiff company, a tour operator.
Somewhere in July 2006, she met the representatives of the 1st defendant and it
was agreed that she presents a proposal for the organization of the tour/flight
services to the pilgrims undertaking the 2006/2007 Hajj to Mecca. She did
present the proposal dated the 12th September, 2006 for discussion. According
services to the pilgrims undertaking the 2006/2007 Hajj to Mecca. She did
present the proposal dated the 12th September, 2006 for discussion. According
to plaintiff after the decision the defendant representative at the meeting
added a fourth page after which all the parties appended their signature. She
tended the documents as Exhibit A. In the agreement she was to arrange the
flight with Afriquiyah Airline. From the evidence before me when the
arrangement for this airline failed, Miss Kumah entered into an agreement with
Ethiopian Airlines to conduct the Hajj Flight. It is her contention that this
was with the understanding of the defendants representative and it was also
agreed that the proposal Exhibit A meant for Ariquiyah Airline should still
apply to Ethiopian Airline. The defendants deny this. On the basis of this
understanding it is her case she went ahead and got the Ethiopian Airline to
block 500 seats for the pilgrims on its flight from Accra to Jedah. When she
asked for the passports of the prospective pilgrims and their fare to enable
Ethiopian Airline issue tickets for the flight, the defendants failed to
release the passports with the explanation that some Muslim Travel Agents had
raised objection to her involvement she being a woman and a non-Muslim. To
avoid chaos, according to plaintiff representative, Mrs. Kumah it was agreed
that the defendant representative will deliver the passports directly to
Ethiopian Airline on behalf of the plaintiffs to enable the ticket to be
issued. The defendants again failed to present the passport to the Airline. To
the plaintiff therefore the defendant repudiated the agreement occasioning her
loss of commission of $30,500.00. <o:p></o:p>Plaintiff
particularized the loss as:— <o:p></o:p>"Fare
- $800 <o:p></o:p>Commission
(Gross) - $72 <o:p></o:p>Less
Tax - $11 <o:p></o:p>Commission
(Net) Due - $61 x 500 <o:p></o:p>pilgrims
Total Amount - $30,000 <o:p></o:p>She
is claiming on the writ of summons:— <o:p></o:p>"General
and special damages for repudiation of an agreement dated the 12th September,
2006 to arrange for the tour carriage of 500 pilgrims from Accra to Jeddah for
the 2006/2007 Hajj. <o:p></o:p>2.
Interest. <o:p></o:p>3.
Cost". <o:p></o:p>The
defendants deny in whole the case of the plaintiff that there was agreement to
release passport and monies to her. So far as they are concerned she failed in
the arrangement for the Afriquiyah and that ended any contractual relations
with the plaintiff. There was no agreement with the plaintiff in respect of
Ethiopian Airlines, the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages. <o:p></o:p>In
determining the issues raised by the parties at end of trial it is important to
look firstly at Exhibit A the proposals for the Hajj operation the plaintiff
prepared and executed by the parties. There is no doubt the defendant's Board
Chairman, Sheik Mustapha, executed the document. It is not in dispute that it
was Mrs. Kumah who contacted the defendant's representatives on the
organization of the flight for the pilgrims and it was agreed that plaintiff
prepare a proposal which they did in the form of Exhibit A. Whilst the
defendants consider the Exhibit A a mere proposal, the plaintiffs consider it a
binding agreement. <o:p></o:p>Reading
Exhibit A it is clearly meant for Afriquiyah Airways. But it is the contention
of the plaintiffs that they agreed with the defendants representatives that the
same Exhibit A should form the contract in respect of Ethiopian Airlines which
plaintiffs was going to contact to replace Afriquiyah Airways for the trip.
Firstly is Exhibit A a mere proposal or a binding agreement? By plaintiff
representatives own evidence, after she had contacted the defendants' executive
she was asked to bring a proposal which she sent in the form of Exhibit A.
Exhibit A is clearly headed a proposal. The proposal provides for the fare,
seat arrangement and states that "block seat arrangement can be increased
when there is proof of financial commitment by the National Hajj Board".
It provides for the type of aircraft, schedule of flight, excess baggage mode
of payment. <o:p></o:p>