PROTON INTERNATIONAL NETWORK (PLAINTIFF) vs. KARE & KARE LTD (DEFENDANT) [2016]DLHC7342

Date	2016-03-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO.RPC/268/14
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC7342

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

SARAH KUSI FOR PLAINTIFF

BOBBY BANSON FOR DEFENDANT

[2016]DLHC7342
																																						<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" >PROTON
INTERNATIONAL NETWORK<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KARE &amp;
KARE LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), 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.RPC/268/14&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;DATE:
15TH MARCH, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>SARAH
KUSI 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">

BOBBY
BANSON FOR DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).<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;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>A summary of the facts giving rise to the present
action is that the Plaintiff and the Defendant herein entered into a memorandum
of understanding (M.O.U) on the 18th of March, 2014 in which the Plaintiff
was to provide consultancy services to the Defendant for the latter to be
granted Airtime distributorship licence from Airtel Ghana Ltd. It was further
agreed that the Airtime distribution license will appoint the Defendant an
exclusive distributor for a period of two years (renewable subject to
satisfactory performance). The parties further agreed that the Plaintiff was to
secure the license for the Defendant before 1st April, 2014. In
consideration of this the parties agreed that the Defendant was to pay the sum
of $75,000.00 as compensation to the Plaintiff (but the payment was to be
effected in Ghana Cedi). The parties further agreed that the said sum of money
shall be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff immediately the contract for
the distributorship of Airtel airtime is executed. The 1st Defendant
was appointed a super distributor in April, 2014 to April 2016. The Defendant
failed to acknowledge the letter of appointment and also failed to pay the USD75,000.00
to the Plaintiff. This has brought the parties to court with the Plaintiff
asking for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
sum of USD75,000.00 being the agreed sum to be paid immediately upon the
receipt of signed contract by Airtel Ghana Ltd.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Interest
on the said sum at the agreed Bank of Ghana rate from 9th July, 2014
to date of final payment. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Damages
for breach of contract.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Costs.<o:p></o:p>It is noted that the 2nd Defendant’s
name was struck out as a party to the suit on the 10th of June,
2015. It is further noted that, although the Defendant filed its witness
statement, it failed to attend the pre-trial case management. Defendant also
failed to attend court to testify in the matter or to contest the trial despite
being served with hearing notices.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The case of
the Plaintiff is that it entered into negotiations with the Defendant through
its chief Executive Officer Richard King Atikpo. After series of discussions
and negotiations, the Plaintiff contends that a memorandum of understanding was
agreed between the parties. It is the case of the Plaintiff that it succeeded
in obtaining the distributorship license for the Defendant as agreed between
the p</main>