AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE LIMITED vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2012]DLSC2656

Date	2012-06-06
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/23/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLSC2656

DATE-BAH JSC (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

DOTSE JSC

BONNIE JSC

BAMFO (MRS) JSC

ADDO ATUAH FOR THE APELLANT.

PEARL AKIWUMI SIRIBOUR (PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY) WITH MRS.

YVONNE AWOONOR-WILLIAMS (ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2012]DLSC2656
																																						<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" >AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>&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; vs.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL<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. J4/23/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 6TH JUNE, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ADDO ATUAH&nbsp;&nbsp; FOR THE APELLANT.<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">

PEARL
AKIWUMI SIRIBOUR (PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY) WITH MRS. YVONNE AWOONOR-WILLIAMS
(ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE 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">

DATE-BAH
JSC (PRESIDING), ANSAH JSC, DOTSE JSC, BONNIE JSC,BAMFO (MRS) 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>DR. DATE-BAH JSC<o:p></o:p>This is an action brought
by a car dealer in respect of outstanding sums owed it for the servicing of the
motor vehicles of the Ministry of Information.&nbsp;
While the fact of the plaintiff’s services having been rendered to it
was admitted by the Ministry, there was an issue as to the exact sum due and
the interest rate to be applied in relation to the unpaid indebtedness.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff in its
Statement of Claim, filed on 31st January 2008, averred that, by a
letter of 27th January 1997, it had accepted the Ministry’s request
for a credit facility and entered into an agreement with the defendants
regarding the sale and servicing of motor vehicles by it.&nbsp; This averment was denied by the defendant
when he eventually filed his Statement of Defence, on 10th July
2008, after succeeding in setting aside a judgment in default of defence, which
had meanwhile been entered against him.&nbsp;
After the close of pleadings, the two issues set down for trial were:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “Whether or not Plaintiffs and
Defendants have any credit agreement with any mode of calculating interest upon
default.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not Defendants are indebted
to Plaintiffs.”<o:p></o:p>At the trial before the
learned trial High Court Judge, Her Ladyship Justice Torkornoo of the
Commercial Division of the High Court, evidence was heard from the plaintiff’s
witness and a referee who had been appointed, during the pre-trial settlement
stage of the proceedings, by the Court to enquire into the accounting
differences between the parties.&nbsp;
However, the defendant offered no evidence and did not participate in
the trial, although he had notice of it.<o:p></o:p>In her judgment after the trial,
the learned High Court judge held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the
terms of any credible agreement with the Ministry which should lead to the sum
claimed.&nbsp; In the plaintiff’s writ, its
claim was for “recovery of the sum of GH 14,174,693.12 being outstanding sums
owed Plaintiff as at 31st January 2008” and interest on the sums
from date of judgment until date of final payment. Lecturn <o:p></o:p>At the trial, one Harrison
Teye testified for the plaintiff that it had sold motor vehicles to the Ministry
and provided it with after sales service.&nbsp;
He indicated that the sale of motor vehicles was for cash, while the
after sales service was on credit basis covered by an agreement.&nbsp; He claimed that the credit facility agreement
was in writing and the Ministry had accepted it.&nbsp; He tendered this alleged credit facility
agreement into evidence as Exhibit A.&nbsp; He
also tendered as Exhibit B an alleged acceptance of the credit facility
agreement by the Ministry.&nbsp; Exhibit A is
a letter dated 25th March 1991 addressed to the Chief Director,
Ministry of Information and thus different from the letter referred to in the
Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.&nbsp; It
stated that it was intended to reiterate a particular term of a credit facility
which the Ministry was currently enjoying from the plaintiff as follows:<o:p></o:p>