JAMES KOFI SASE & 3 ORS. vs. THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY & 2 ORS. [2018]DLCA6185

JAMES KOFI SASE & 3 ORS. vs. THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY &... [2018]DLCA6185

Date	2018-11-22
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL: NO: H1/143/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA6185

OWUSU J.A. (PRESIDING)

LOVELACE-JOHNSON J.A.

KWOFIE J.A.

THOMAS HUGHES FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

AKAWARI ATINDEM (ASA) FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

[2018]DLCA6185
																																						<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" >JAMES KOFI SASE &amp; 3
ORS.<o:p></o:p>[PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS]<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL
GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY &amp; 2 ORS.<o:p></o:p>[DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS]<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, 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">

CIVIL APPEAL: NO: H1/143/2018&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: 22ND
NOVEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

AKAWARI
ATINDEM (ASA) FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p>

<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>MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.:<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court, Accra, dated 18th of
February, 2018.&nbsp; In the said ruling, the
High Court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs for the
recovery of the sum of three hundred and thirty Ghana cedis (Gh¢330,000) from
the defendants with interest at the prevailing bank rate.<o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied
with the decision of the High Court, the defendant appealed to the Court of
Appeal on the following ground:<o:p></o:p>“The learned trial Judge erred when he
entered summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs when the 1st
co-defendant/appellant had filed a statement of defence indicating triable
issues”<o:p></o:p>The
reliefs sought from the Court of Appeal are:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the entire summary judgment
granted in favour of the plaintiffs be set aside.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the learned trial Judge be ordered
to conduct a full trial of the case.<o:p></o:p>The
facts leading to the judgment in contention are as follows:<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs/respondents herein referred to as plaintiffs claim against the
defendants/appellants herein referred to as defendants.<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery of 13,200 pieces of mixed
white wood or its value Gh¢330,000.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Damages of Gh¢5,000.00 per day per
truck from the 8th August, 2011 to date of final release i.e. 15th November,
2011.<o:p></o:p>iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Full costs recovery including legal fees.<o:p></o:p>In
the 17-paragraph amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs averred that, they
are owners and transporters of about ten (10) trucks of lumber.&nbsp; That sometime in August, 2011, the plaintiffs
were transporting mixed white wood from Techiman to Burkina Faso.&nbsp;&nbsp; The plaintiffs averred further that, it
obtained the necessary permit from the Timber Industry Development Division
after paying the required commission of 1.5%.<o:p></o:p>On
reaching Hamile, the defendant seized the plaintiffs’ trucks, confiscated them
and charged them before the District Court, Wa.&nbsp;
The District Court, Wa, ordered the plaintiffs’ trucks to be released to
them because the plaintiffs had already paid the penalty.&nbsp; The plaintiffs were thus released.&nbsp; The plaintiffs continued that in spite of the
order of the District Court, the defendant has failed and or refused to release
the trucks to the plaintiffs even though the plaintiffs’ drivers were later
released.&nbsp; It is the case of the
plaintiffs that despite several demands including one from their counsel, the
defendant has failed and refused to obey the court’s order to release the
trucks and timber to them.&nbsp; They
concluded that, upon the institution of this writ, the trucks were released but
not the timber hence this action.<o:p></o:p>On
22nd February, 2012, the defendant applied to join the National Security and
the Forestry Commission as 1st and 2nd co-defendant.&nbsp; In its statement of defence, the 1st
co-defendant averred that, the timber was confiscated because it is chain sawn
lumber which is illegal to possess.&nbsp; It
continued that, the National Security Coordinator has instituted an enquiry
into the transaction concerning the lumber and the circumstances under which it
was acquired by the plaintiffs and the Committee was yet to submit its
report.&nbsp; It concluded that plaintiffs
were in possession of chain saw timber which is illegal contrary to the Timber
Resources Management Regulations 1998, L. I. 1649.<o:p></o:p>See
the statement of defence filed on behalf of 1st co-defendant on the 16th April,
2012.<o:p></o:p>Then
on 21st May, 2012, the plaintiffs filed motion on notice for an order for the
sale of the wood products the subject matter of the case under order 25 rule 1
of C. I. 47.&nbsp; This application was
granted</main>