MR. PHILIP GYASI APPIAH vs. SURF PUBLICATION GH. LTD. [2013]DLCA5595

Date	2013-07-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: H1/57/2012
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA5595

OWUSU M. J.A. (PRESIDING)

ADUAMA OSEI J.A.

DZAMEFE J.A.

NANA K. OWUSU-POKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

SAMUEL BOAKYE FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2013]DLCA5595
																																						<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" >MR. PHILIP GYASI APPIAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SURF PUBLICATION GH. LTD.<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">

SUIT NO.: H1/57/2012&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; JULY
18, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NANA
K. OWUSU-POKU 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">

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>OWUSU
M. J.A. (PRESIDING), ADUAMA OSEI J.A., DZAMEFE 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;tab-stops:63.75pt center 3.25in;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>MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A:<o:p></o:p>On
27-5-2009, the High Court (Commercial Division) Accra dismissed the plaintiff’s
case. Defendant’s counterclaim was upheld in part when the Court held as
follows: <o:p></o:p>“In
the current situation where plaintiff waived the right not to have the
calculators delivered in different consignments. By accepting the first
consignment, the contract is one that may be delivered in two consignments and
there stands no legal reason why he should not be compelled to receive the
second consignment. Secondly, the calculators are specifically embossed with
the plaintiff’s name and defendant cannot sell them to anyone. I order that the
plaintiff take delivery of the final part of the contract being 4,100 SPC 2003
calculators and pay the defendant the outstanding sum of $10,068.00 with
interest thereon from 30th August, 2007 on acceptance of delivery. Of
course, this judgment makes no finding of fact on whether or not the 4,100
calculators are defective and if they happen to be defective when examined at
the time of delivery. The plaintiff has all his rights under law. Section 52 of
Act 137 provides that:<o:p></o:p>(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “The acceptance of a part of the goods
does not deprive the buyer of any right to reject any other part unless the
contract is not severable.”&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>But
that is a bridge the parties are yet to react. The court’s order only relate to
the enforcement of the terms of the contract, being the delivery of 4,100 SPC
2003 calculators and their payment of the balance of 30% on acceptance of
delivery. <o:p></o:p>The
court dismisses the counterclaim for damages owing to the late delivery of the
calculators both for the 8 digits calculators, and the consignment delivered
and refused on 30th August, 2007.<o:p></o:p>Costs
of GH¢1,000.00”<o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied
with the decision of the High Court, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of
Appeal on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The judgment is manifestly against the
overwhelming weight of evidence adduced at the trial.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned Judge erred in holding
that time was not of the essence in the contract.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned Judge having found that
some of the items were defective, erred in ordering the appellant to collect
remaining goods which have been rejected for breach of contract.<o:p></o:p>