DEBRAIN INVESTIMENT COMPANY vs. ARAMEX EXPRESS SERVICES [2017]DLHC3290

Date	2017-05-03
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC 70/2014
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3290

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2017]DLHC3290
																																						<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" >DEBRAIN INVESTIMENT COMPANY<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ARAMEX EXPRESS SERVICES<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>SUIT NO. OCC
70/2014&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3RD
MAY, 2017<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 0in 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;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 0in 0in">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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="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">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>This case raises fascinating legal questions on the scope of legal concepts
such as lien, detinue and conversion under common law. There had been in
existence a form of agreement between the parties, for the plaintiff, a freight
forwarding and clearing company to use the services of defendant, a courier services
company for the transportation of electronic gadgets of the clients of
plaintiff. The bill for the shipment of the goods of the clients of plaintiff
was supposed to be sent to it sometime later for payment. Defendant,
incandescent with rage that its bill of Gh¢54.000 being credit line bill
arrears owed it and sent to plaintiff had not been honoured, took hold of the
goods of the clients of plaintiff, that it had air lifted to Ghana on behalf of
plaintiff, in the guise of having a lien on them. The plaintiff remonstrated
about the devastating toll the non-release of the goods was having on its
business. The obstinate refusal of defendant to release the goods
notwithstanding the persistent entreaties of plaintiff and other allegations it
harbours against defendant precipitated the amended writ of plaintiff praying
for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration that the defendant’s purported seizure of the plaintiff’s
goods itemized in paragraph 5 is unlawful.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery of money the sum of US$9,338.00 or its cedi equivalent being
cost of plaintiff’s shipment items misplaced by the defendant in the latter’s
custody since 2013.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest on relief ‘2’ supra at the prevailing commercial bank lending
rate from various dates of misplace items beginning October 2013 till date of
last payment.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order that the defendant act in suo motu introducing [sic] and
levying VAT taxes and charges on the plaintiff halfway into the commercial
relationship&nbsp; without reference to
plaintiff and yet failing to pay same to the VAT authorities is unlawful,
unjustified and criminal.<o:p></o:p>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Special damages and aggravated damages for loss of income and business
profit, business loss, reputation and market suffered and loss.<o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cost including solicitors fees.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To plaintiff as at August, 2014 when defendant
furnished it with the bill of Gh¢54.000 the plaintiff had then shipped items of
its clients through defendant of electronic gadgets. Out of about 40 clients
whose items had then been shipped, only twenty two had</main>