KODSON TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED vs. YARA GHANA LIMITED [2017]DLHC2067

Date	2017-10-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: CM/0313/16
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC2067

SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

MR. SAVIOUR KUDZE FOR THE PLAINTIFF

MS. BRIDGET ATTA-KONADU FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2017]DLHC2067
																																						<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" >KODSON
TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>YARA GHANA
LIMITED<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

&nbsp;SUIT
NO.: CM/0313/16&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 27TH
OCTOBER, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
SAVIOUR KUDZE FOR THE PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MS.
BRIDGET ATTA-KONADU FOR THE DEFENDANT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU, 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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>This
court has been called upon to determine whether the defendant in this case is
indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of GH₵75,067.22.
The defendant company is a distributor of fertilizer products which it imports
from abroad whiles the plaintiff is a company that is into the business of
haulage and rental of heavy duty equipment. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From
the pleadings the court finds that the defendant has admitted that in March
2015, it entered into an agreement with the plaintiff by which the plaintiff
was tasked to haul fertilizer from the port of Tema to the defendant’s
warehouse which is located in Tema. <o:p></o:p>Consequently,
in January 2016 the plaintiff hauled a quantity of fertilizer which had been
delivered at the port of Tema to the defendant’s warehouse. The defendant does
not dispute that the transportation of the fertilizer from the port to its
warehouse was covered by Way Bills prepared by its employees or agents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When
the plaintiff, thereafter, submitted its invoice, exhibit ‘B’ herein, to the
defendant for the payment of the cost of the work done, the defendant, claiming
that the quantity of fertilizer delivered by the plaintiff fell short of that
which was expected, deducted certain sums of money, allegedly, representing the
value of the alleged shortage and paid the remainder to the plaintiff. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Not
satisfied with the actions of the defendant, the plaintiff protested, as shown
by exhibits ‘C’ and ‘D’, among others, but when the protests fell on deaf ears,
the plaintiff issued the instant writ against the defendant for: <o:p></o:p>Recovery of the sum
of Seventy Five thousand sixty-seven Ghana cedis twenty-two pesewas
(GH¢75,067.22), being balance on the total amount due Plaintiff from services
Plaintiff rendered Defendant on 10th and 11th January,
2016.<o:p></o:p>Interest on the
said amount of Seventy Five thousand sixty-seven Ghana Cedis twenty-two pesewas
(GH¢75,067.22) in (a) above at the prevailing commercial bank rate from
January, 2016 till date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>Cost including
Lawyer’s fees.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
the opinion of the court, the main dispute between the parties has to do with
the obligations assumed by each party under the contract and the extent of
liability detailed thereunder. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
interpreting deeds and contractual documents between parties, the law enjoins
the court to have regard, generally speaking, to the intentions of the parties
expressed in the contractual document and thus, external matters not stated by
the parties as part of the contract need not be imported therein to form part
of the contract. Section 177 of the Evidence Act of 1975, NRCD 323 puts the
principle very firmly when it provides that:<o:p></o:p>