HONISCH GMBH SUING PER ITS LAWFUL ATTORNEY MOHAMMED SAHNOON vs. JOHN E. ODAMETEY AND GERTEX GROUP LTD [2016]DLHC17320

HONISCH GMBH SUING PER ITS LAWFUL ATTORNEY MOHAMMED SAHNOON vs. JOHN E. ODAMET... [2016]DLHC17320

Date	2016-04-19
Suit No.	Suit No. OCC/3/2009
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC17320

JENNIFER DODOO (MRS)

SEYRAM DARBI

SAMUEL ADU-BOAHENE

[2016]DLHC17320
																																						<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="_Hlk154138250"></a><a name="_Hlk152146143">HONISCH GMBH SUING<o:p></o:p></a>&nbsp;PER ITS LAWFUL ATTORNEY MOHAMMED SAHNOON <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>JOHN E. ODAMETEY AND GERTEX
GROUP LTD <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">Suit No. OCC/3/2009&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 19TH APRIL 2016<o:p></o:p>

SEYRAM DARBI FOR PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM
<o:p></o:p>JENNIFER
DODOO (MRS)<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
tab-stops:4.5pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>The Plaintiff, which described itself
as a company based in Germany brought this action via its attorney claiming the
sum of €50,686.35 which it called overdue payments for goods supplied to the
Defendants.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Plaintiff in its Statement of
Claim stated that it negotiated with the 1st Defendant for the
supply of argon gas to VALCO.&nbsp; According
to the Plaintiff, on the directions of 1st Defendant, the shipment
was made in the name of 2nd Defendant with VALCO as consignee.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It was Plaintiff’s contention that
having received full payment from VALCO, the 1st Defendant had
failed to pay it.&nbsp; It therefore
complained that the Defendants had by their conduct perpetrated fraud on them.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Defendants in their defence stated
that the contract for the supply of argon gas was between Plaintiff and the 2nd
Defendant, a limited liability company.&nbsp;
It was the Defendants’ claim that a term of the contract was for the gas
to be delivered to the 2nd Defendant’s customers on the basis of
cost, insurance and freight (CIF).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Defendants also said that the 2nd
Defendant was to make payment for each consignment 30 days from the bill of
lading date.&nbsp; It was Defendants’
contention that although the parties agreed to delay the first shipment to
enable the 2nd Defendant’s customers to align their business
operations with the delivery of the argon gas, the Plaintiff decided to charge
them for cancellation when what had transpired was just a delay.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Thereafter the 2nd
consignment was never delivered as the container it arrived in was empty.&nbsp; The 2nd Defendant was forced to
make payment and it was on pursuing the insurance claim in respect of the
consignment that the 2nd Defendant found out that there was no
insurance policy in existence in respect of the cargo.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Defendants made a counterclaim for
damages for fraud and for breach of contract as well as a claim for €13,490.00
or its cedi equivalent being the costs for pursuing the insurance claim. The
Defendants also made a claim for €52,359.09 being over-invoiced and/or double
invoiced for value of argon gas supplied to the 2nd Defendant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Hearing commenced in this matter by
PW1 giving evidence on 8th April 2014.&nbsp; One issue had been set down for trial at this
time and this was:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Whether or not the Defendants are
indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of €22,173.55 as claimed per the writ of
summons?<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;After </main>