FRABINA LIMITED vs. SHELL GHANA LIMITED [2010]DLSC2518

Date	2010-08-11
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/31/2009
Citation No.	[2010]DLSC2518

WOOD (MRS) CJ (PRESIDING)

BROBBEY JSC

DOTSE JSC

YEBOAH JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

KENNETH MAINOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

STANLEY AMARTEIFIO FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2010]DLSC2518
																																						<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" >FRABINA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SHELL GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, 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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/31/2009&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
11TH AUGUST,
2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KENNETH
MAINOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/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">

STANLEY AMARTEIFIO FOR THE
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">WOOD
(MRS) CJ (PRESIDING), BROBBEY JSC, DOTSE JSC, YEBOAH JSC, GBADEGBE JSC<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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>BROBBEY,
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff and the defendant at the trial court
entered into a dealership agreement which was tendered as exhibit A. The
purpose of the agreement was to enable the plaintiff to run the Legon Road
Service Station as petrol outlet unit. For the implementation of the agreement,
the plaintiff paid the defendant ten thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS 10,000.00) as
“working capital.” The agreement was terminated by the defendants at a time
when the defendants claimed that the plaintiff owed it some moneys. &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Following the termination of the agreement, the
plaintiff sued the defendant in the High Court for recovery of the GHS
10,000.00, interest on that amount, recovery of GHS 49300.00 being overdraft facility
taken by the plaintiff from its bankers, interest on that overdraft and damages
for wrongful termination of the dealership agreement.<o:p></o:p>The High Court dismissed all but one of the
claims: It awarded GHS 6000.00 as damages for the wrongful termination of the
agreement and cost of GHS 1000.00 in favour of the plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal and
argued inter alia that the damages awarded were on the low side. The appeal was
dismissed.&nbsp; Against that judgment, the
plaintiff appealed to this court on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That the
judgment was against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That the Court
of Appeal erred in not allowing the appeal. <o:p></o:p>In this judgment, the plaintiff shall be referred
to as the appellant while the defendant will be referred to as the respondent.<o:p></o:p>In arguing the appeal in this court, the appellant
contended that the GHS 10,000.00 that it paid was not working capital but was rather
a refundable “security deposit” which was “mistakenly referred to as the
working capital.” That argument was simply untenable for the following reason: The
appellant conducted the entire case in the High Court and the Court of Appeal on
the basis that that amount was the working capital. The case started with the
plaintiff’s claim for <o:p></o:p>“the recovery of its working capital of
¢100,000,000.00 paid to the defendant to enable the plaintiff operate the Legon
Road Shell Service Station and the attached groceries shop.”<o:p></o:p>In paragraph 14 of the statement of claim, the
appellant referred to the amount as the working capital. In the evidence of the
Managing Director of the plaintiff, he stated right from the beginning of his
testimony that “the first condition (in exhibit A) was for the plaintiff to pay
¢100 million as deposit as a working capital.” <o:p></o:p>In exhibit E, the letter acknowledging the
plaintiff’s indebtedness to the defendant which was tendered on behalf of the
plaintiff, the plaintiff used the expression “working capital” six times at
page 2.<o:p></o:p>The agreement on the dealership, exhibit A,
referred to only the working capital in several places and goes on t</main>