ANDIMAX MARKETING LTD {PLAINTIFF} vs. ARKAS SHIPPING & TRANSPORT LTD {DEFENDANTS} JOSEPH YAW ASIAMAH [2017]DLHC6290

ANDIMAX MARKETING LTD {PLAINTIFF} vs. ARKAS SHIPPING & TRANSPORT LTD {DEFENDANTS... [2017]DLHC6290

Date	2017-04-13
Suit No.	Suit No. RPC/97/14
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC6290

JENNIFER DODOO (MRS)

JOSEPH BERNARD ASHALLEY FOR PLAINTIFF

D. K. AMELEY FOR 1ST DEFENDANT

[2017]DLHC6290
																																						<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" >ANDIMAX MARKETING LTD<o:p></o:p>{PLAINTIFF}<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ARKAS SHIPPING &amp; TRANSPORT LTD {DEFENDANTS} JOSEPH YAW ASIAMAH<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/97/14&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;DATE: 13TH APRIL 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>JOSEPH BERNARD ASHALLEY 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">

D. K. AMELEY FOR 1ST
DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>JENNIFER DODOO (MRS) 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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Plaintiff’s claim against the
Defendants jointly and severally was for an amount of $22,000.00 or its cedi
equivalent together with interest as well as GH¢100,000.00 in damages being
lost income and business as a result of the Defendants’ conduct.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was the Plaintiff’s case that it
acquired a quantity of frozen chicken products which products were in 1st
Defendant’s custody.&nbsp; The 2nd
Defendant approached the Plaintiff to purchase the whole consignment of
goods.&nbsp; The Plaintiff contended that it
released to the 2nd Defendant a copy of the document pertaining to
the goods to enable 2nd Defendant do his due diligence.&nbsp; .&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Plaintiff contended further that it should not have been possible for the 2nd
Defendant to clear the goods from the 1st Defendant without a copy
of the original documents or a telex release yet it later discovered that the 2nd
Defendant had connived with the 1st Defendant’s employee to clear
said goods by presenting forged documents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendants entered
appearance.&nbsp; Whilst a defence was filed
on behalf of 1st Defendant, no defence was filed on 2nd
Defendant’s behalf.&nbsp; The suit therefore
progressed to trial with the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was the 1st
Defendant’s version of events that it did not operate in Ghana apart from its
vessels calling at the Port of Tema to deliver cargo for consignees.&nbsp; According to the 1st Defendant,
the Plaintiff and its agents approached its local agent, Hull Blyth Ghana and
informed it that the consignment had been sold to the 2nd Defendant
who was entitled to delivery of the said goods.&nbsp;
Thereafter, the 2nd Defendant produced documentation to the
goods.&nbsp; They accordingly delivered the
goods to the 2nd Defendant unaware that he had not paid for the
goods.&nbsp; They denied liability averring
that any liability for the payment of the goods lay with the 2nd
Defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Plaintiff in its reply denied
ever informing the 1st Defendant that the goods had been sold to the
2nd Defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The issues set down for trial were:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">Whether or not the said frozen
 chicken products were in the custody of the 1st Defendant?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">Whether or not a telex message,
 the original copy of a bill of lading and/or the express instructions of a
 supplier or importer of a consignment are the modes by which a consignment
 can be cleared by a shipping line which has custody of the consignment?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">Whether or not the Plaintiff
 introduced the 2nd Defendant to the 1st Defendant’s
 agent here in Ghana as the purchaser who was entitled to delivery of the
 cargo?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">Whether or not 1st
 Defendant and/or its employee connived with 2nd Defendant by
 using photocopies of documents covering the consignment to clear the
 consignment irregularly without going through the proper procedure in
 clearing consignments in the custody of a shipping line and/or receiving
 express instructions from the importer or supplier to clear the
 consignment? <o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">Whether or not the 1st
 and 2nd Defendants forged documents of the Plaintiff to
 illegally clear the consignment?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">Whether or not the 2nd
 Defendant took delivery of the cargo?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">Whether or not that the 2nd
 Defendant informed the Plaintiff that it was 1st Defendant who helped
 the 2nd Defendant to clear Plaintiff’s consignment without
 Plaintiff’s authorization?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">Whether or not the 1st
 Defendant’s agent was negligent?<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">Whether or n</main>