SAVANNAH FARMERS MARKETING vs. SOLOMON OSSEI SARFO & ANOR [2015]DLHC3558

Date	2015-08-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO.RPC/166/14
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC3558

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

RICHARD OBENG MENSAH FOR DEFENDANT.

MOHAMMED ALHASSAN FOR PLAINTIFF.

[2015]DLHC3558
																																						<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" >SAVANNAH FARMERS
MARKETING<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SOLOMON OSSEI SARFO
&amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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">

SUIT NO.RPC/166/14&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;DATE: 14TH AUGUST, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>RICHARD OBENG MENSAH FOR
DEFENDANT.<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">

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">

</div>In this action, the
Plaintiff, Savanna Farmers Marketing Company, is claiming an amount of GH¢ 74,
576.00 representing the outstanding balance of white maize sold to the
Defendants. The Plaintiff described itself as a registered company engaged in
the processing and marketing of cereals. The 2nd Defendant was
described as a co-operative society engaged in the marketing of farm produce
with the 1st Defendant as its director. These facts are not in
dispute.<o:p></o:p>In sum, the Plaintiff's
case is that the 1st Defendant approached it in July 2013 and
offered to buy white maize for and on behalf of the 2nd Defendant.
Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the Plaintiff was to supply 7800
mini bags (50kg)of white maize equivalent to 3000&nbsp; (130 kg) bags to the Defendants. Out of this
quantity, the Plaintiff supplied 6,120 mini bags on credit after an agent of the
latter had inspected the same. &nbsp;Subsequently,
the 1st Defendant raised concerns about the unwholesome nature of
140 bags which the parties deducted from the quantity supplied leaving a
balance of 5, 980 mini bags equivalent to 2300 of the 130kg. It is also the
Plaintiff's case that the parties renegotiated the price and it was reviewed
downwards from GH¢ 65.00 per each 130 Kg bag to GH¢ 60.00 and for the 2300
bags, the Defendants were to pay GH¢ 138,000.00. The 1st Defendant
is said to have executed two post dated cheques as part payment but one cheque
was dishonoured leaving an unpaid balance of GH¢74, 576.00 which is still
outstanding.<o:p></o:p>The case for the
Defendants is that it was rather the Plaintiff Company which prevailed upon them
to purchase the said maize and the same was eventually supplied to them. They
denied the Plaintiff's assertion that their agent inspected the maize prior to
delivery. It is also their case that the Plaintiff was aware that the maize
sold to them were to be supplied to the World Food Programme&nbsp; (WFP). However, the WFP rejected the
consignment on the basis that they were unwholesome. The Defendants alleged
that they sold the rejected consignment to poultry farmers but they also lost
their birds because of the toxins in the maize.&nbsp;
In short, they attributed their inability to pay the outstanding balance
to the poor quality of the maize supplied to them by the Plaintiff.&nbsp; The quantum of indebtedness was also
challenged on the basis that the two postdated cheques amounting to GH¢126,500.00
represented the full payment at the agreed price of GH¢ 55.00 per bag. Thus, after
one of the cheques had been returned, the balance outstanding is GH¢ 63, 250.00
and not GH¢ 74, 576.00 as alleged by the Plaintiff. And, they have refused to
pay this amount because the maize was unwholesome and the poultry farmers who
purchased them have also refused to pay for the same. The Defendants therefore
counterclaimed as follows:<o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Repayment of the GH¢ 63, 250.00 that Defendants'
paid to Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Interest on the said amount at the
prevailing commercial bank rate from 1st September, 2013 till the final
day of payment.<o:p></o:p>c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Damages for the death of the poultry that
were fed with the Plaintiff's unwholesome maize and loss of business and
reputation of Defendants and their customers.<o:p></o:p>d)