ASHDEN TRADING PTY LTD vs. SAMARTEX TIMBER & PLYWOOD CO. LTD [2014]DLCA4788

Date	2014-12-10
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO: H1/31/14
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA4788

C. J. HONYENUGA J.A (PRESIDING)

B. F. ACKAH-YENSU J.A

SAAED KWAKU GYAN J.A

SAMUEL ADINKRA FOR PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT

BRIGHT OTCHERE-AGYEKUM FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2014]DLCA4788
																																						<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" >ASHDEN TRADING PTY LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SAMARTEX TIMBER &amp;
PLYWOOD CO. LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<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 SUIT NO: H1/31/14&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: 10TH
DECEMBER 2014<o:p></o:p>

BRIGHT
OTCHERE-AGYEKUM FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>C.
J. HONYENUGA J.A (PRESIDING), B. F. ACKAH-YENSU J.A, SAAED KWAKU GYAN 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="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>BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU, JA<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the judgment of the Commercial Division of the High Court
sitting in Sekondi and dated 13th March, 2013.<o:p></o:p>A
summary of the Plaintiff/Respondent’s case is that pursuant to a contract
between the Parties, the Plaintiff/Respondent between July and December 2009, purchased
five (5) containers load of plywood (Chenchen and Ceiba) from the
Defendant/Appellant at a total cost of US$148,801.48 (AUD 183,705.55).<o:p></o:p>Plaintiff/Respondent
who required the goods for sale to the construction industry specifically
indicated the quality grading of the goods to be B/BB and better grading.&nbsp; They also provided specific additional
requirements and/or specifications for each order. It was the further case of
the Plaintiff/Respondent that it was an implied condition of the said contract and
the Defendant/Appellant thereby warranted that the goods would be of
merchantable quality.&nbsp; In breach of the
contract and the said condition and warranty, the goods delivered by the
Defendant/Appellant were not of merchantable quality but contained defects
rendering same unmerchantable.<o:p></o:p>Also,
the Plaintiff/Respondent claimed that in order to induce them to make and
complete the said contract and pay the consideration thereof,
Defendant/Appellant expressly undertook to treat the wood with appropriate dosage
of FOSSECT 88 for protection against wood borers.&nbsp; However, in breach of this express
undertaking, the Defendant/Appellant negligently and/or fraudulently failed to
do so thus rendering the wood mouldy and/or unfit for the intended
purposes.&nbsp; After repeated demands and the
failure and/or refusal to compensate for the losses incurred, the
Plaintiff/Respondent sued for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“a. Recovery of the sum of U$213,700.87 AUD
being special damages.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;
Interest on said U$213,700.87 AUD a the prevailing Bank rate from 1st
January 2010 till date of final payment”<o:p></o:p>The
Defendant/Appellant denied Plaintiff/Respondent’s claim and alleged that the
goods were produced in accordance with the contracts and that the Timber
Industry Development Division of the Forestry Commission (TIDD) inspected and
certified the goods before their export.&nbsp;
They also contended that Maersk Line, the shippers of the goods, did not
receive any notification of damage to the containers.<o:p></o:p>In
its judgment, the trial Court granted Plaintiff/Respondent’s claims as follows:<o:p></o:p>“1. Recovery of the sum of
US$213,700.87 AUD being special damages.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;
Interest on the said US$213,700.87 AUD at the prevailing bank rate from
1st January 2010 till date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>3. General damages of Gh¢2,000.00 for
breach of contract.<o:p></o:p>4. General damages of Gh¢3,000.00 for
negligence.”<o:p></o:p>The
Defendant/Appellant being aggrieved by this decision filed the appeal on the
following grounds:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;“a. The judgment is against the weight of
evidence<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;b. The
costs awarded is excessive<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;c. Additional grounds would be filed upon
receipt of the&nbsp; record of proceedings”<o:p></o:p>No
additional grounds have been filed.<o:p></o:p>When
an appellant alleges that the judgment of the trial court was against the
weight of evidence, it is settled law that the appellant has the duty to
e</main>