BERNARD ANSAH vs. SIMON BAIDOO [2015]DLHC3527

Date	2015-12-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO.RPC/34/14
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC3527

HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

KWABENA POKU MENSAH FOR PLAINTIFF

BENJAMIN K. ACOLATSE FOR DEFENDANT

[2015]DLHC3527
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">BERNARD
ANSAH<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>SIMON BAIDOO<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), KUMASI]<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-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;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.RPC/34/14&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;&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: 8TH DECEMBER, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KWABENA
POKU MENSAH FOR PLAINTIFF <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">

BENJAMIN K. ACOLATSE FOR DEFENDANT <o:p></o:p>

HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) 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">

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

</div>This
action arose from disagreements between the parties herein over a sale of goods
contract whereby used printers were to be supplied by the Plaintiff to the
Defendant.&nbsp; The Plaintiff is claiming an
unpaid balance of fifteen thousand five hundred Euros (E15,500.00) together
with interest. <o:p></o:p>A
summary of the Plaintiff's case as contained in his statement of claim filed on
14/10/2013 is that somewhere in July 2012, the defendant approached him to
facilitate the purchase of printing machines from Germany for his printing
business. The Defendant is said to have turned down two machines earlier
supplied to him&nbsp; and they were
replaced.&nbsp; The Plaintiff quoted the&nbsp; purchase price as forty three thousand Euros
( E 43,000.00) out of which the Defendant paid twenty Seven Thousand, Five
Hundred Euros, leaving an unpaid balance of Fifteen Thousand and Five Hundred
Euros ( E 15,500.00). <o:p></o:p>The
Defendant's defence is encapsulated in a 14- paragraphed statement of defence
filed on &nbsp;28/11/13. His case was that the
Plaintiff supplied him with different specifications and models of the printing
machines , contrary to their agreement. Besides, the machines were delivered
late, causing him to borrow additional monies to carry out his printing works
so as not to disappoint his customers. He further pleaded that the price was
quoted in Cedis, but not in Euros, and he&nbsp;
in fact made a part payment of GHS 62,000.00&nbsp; in addition to a commitment fee of GH¢
2,000.00, out of the total sale price of GH¢ 130,000.00. These machines turned
out to be defective. And, to&nbsp;&nbsp; the
knowledge of the Plaintiff, he incurred extra expenses by way of payments to
engineers in his attempt to make the machines operational. <o:p></o:p>Therefore,
the defendant counterclaimed as follows:<o:p></o:p>(1)
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; For an order to compel the
Plaintiff to supply him with 2 units of slightly used Kord 64 printing machines
with a set off of costs incurred in an attempt to repair the malfunctioning
Kord 62 used printing machine earlier supplied by the Plaintiff and retrieve
the said malfunctioning Kord 62 used printing machine from the Defendant's
workshop.<o:p></o:p>OR
in the alternative the Plaintiff should be ordered by this court to refund all
monies totaling Thirteen Thousand Ghana Cedis ( GH¢ 13,000.00) as at 31st July
2013 excluding interest spent by the Defendant in an effort to repair the
supplied one unit of Kord 62 used printing machine and retrieve the said
malfunctioning Kord 62 used printing machine from the Defendant's workshop.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order to compel the Plaintiff to
reimburse him with all monies totaling Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred Ghana
Cedis &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;( GH¢14, 900.00) as at 31st
December 2012 excluding interest spent on repair works on the Heidelberg MO slightly
used machine supplied.<o:p></o:p>OR
in the alternative the Plaintiff should be compelled to use the said amount
incurred in repairing the aforesaid Heidelberg MO slightly used machine to
defray the outstanding just balance on Defendant's account.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp; Cost<o:p></o:p>5.
&nbsp; Any further orders as this Honourable
Court may deem fit.<o:p></o:p>The
issues for determination are:<o:p></o:p>1.