STALLION INDUSTRIES & INV. LTD vs. MILLICENT TIWAA AND STALLION INDUSTRIES & INV. LTD vs. ESTHER ZANOO [2018]DLHC10145

STALLION INDUSTRIES & INV. LTD vs. MILLICENT TIWAA AND STALLION INDUSTRIES & I... [2018]DLHC10145

Date	2018-10-09
Suit No.	CONSOLIDATED SUIT CM/RPC/0400/16
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC10145

JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.

ASSAD GBADEGBE WITH MS. MOTHER THERESA FOR PLAINTIFF

MICHAEL AKANBEK FOR MILICENT TIWAAH AND ESTHER ZANOO.

[2018]DLHC10145
																																						<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" >STALLION INDUSTRIES &amp; INV. LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MILLICENT TIWAA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>STALLION INDUSTRIES &amp; INV. LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ESTHER ZANOO<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL 5) ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CONSOLIDATED
SUIT CM/RPC/0400/16&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
9TH OCT. 2018<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">MICHAEL
AKANBEK FOR MILICENT TIWAAH, AND ESTHER ZANOO.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;1.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Background
<o:p></o:p>1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The judgment relates to two suits that the
plaintiff commenced separately against the defendants. Upon application during the
case management conference, the two suits were consolidated for trial. <o:p></o:p>1.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Plaintiff is a company that deals in wholesale
supply of food items. Defendants are customers of plaintiff. On grounds of alleged
breach of payment terms of goods supplied on credit arising from post-dated
cheques that defendants issued, which upon presentation were returned and
unpaid, plaintiff by writ of summons on 10 June 2016 commenced the two suits separately
against defendants for recovery of the unpaid balances on the supplied goods.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Plaintiff’s claim against Millicent Tiwaah
(MT) is for recovery of GH¢225,145, whilst the suit against Esther Zanoo (EZ) is
for recovery of GH¢249,642 being unpaid goods plaintiff supplied on credit, for
which payment by postdated cheques were returned unpaid. &nbsp;Except for the differing sum amounts in the suits,
plaintiff’s reliefs, indeed consequential reliefs are the same. They are: damages
for breach of contract, interest on the sums, as well as legal and solicitors’ costs
<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Following the parties’ inability to
settle at the pretrial settlement conference, the two suits were on 8 March
2018 referred to this court for trial by the Administrator of the Court. As I
have stated just above, upon application at the case management conference, the
court ordered for their consolidation for trial. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Parties’
case<o:p></o:p>2.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Plaintiff’s case<o:p></o:p>According to plaintiff,
since November 2008, it had agreed to supply defendants with quantities of rice
and oil on credit upon drawing of post-dated checks as security. According to
plaintiff, it was a term that payments for the goods supplied shall be made
within 30 days upon delivery. That is, the postdated cheques shall clear within
the 30 days after their issue. Plaintiff’s claim is that the cheques that
defendants issued for payment of the goods supplied were dishonored upon
presentation, and that in April 2015 it lodged complaint on the matter with the
police, upon whose assistance, it</main>