ASCOSWISS AG vs. GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY AND OTHERS [2018]DLHC3454

Date	2018-11-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/TRPC/0003/2016
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3454

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2018]DLHC3454
																																						<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" >ASCOSWISS AG<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY AND OTHERS<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.
CM/TRPC/0003/2016&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;19TH
NOVEMBER, 2018<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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Plaintiff/Applicant in this application seeks an order
for summary judgment against the Defendants for the reliefs endorsed on the
writ. As the reliefs for which the summary judgment being sought are relevant
to the determination of this application, I find it necessary to reproduce them
as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">A declaration that the Plaintiff is the bona fide
 owner of the caterpillar D8R with serial No. 9EM02518 and are entitled to
 possession of the two equipment.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">A declaration that the gazette notification of
 the confiscation published in the Commercial and Industrial Bulletin dated
 the 10th of January, 2014 which gave notice of the confiscation
 of Caterpillar with serial NO 9EM02518 and the purported confiscation and
 removal from the port is unlawful and a nullity.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">A declaration that the decision of the 1st
 Defendant to detain and refusal of 1st Defendant to release and
 allow the Plaintiff to re-export Caterpillar D&amp;R with serial NO
 9E02521 is illegal, irrational and procedurally improper and infringes the
 standards of reasonableness of the administrative act.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="4" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">An order that the Plaintiff recover from the 1st
 Defendant the sum of Seven Hundred and Forty-Five Thousand Six Hundred
 Swiss Frans) being the cost of the two caterpillars D&amp;R with Serial
 Nos 9EM02518 and D9E02521 auctioned off by the 1st Defendant.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="5" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Interest on the sum of CHF 743,600 from the 25th
 of August, 2014 to the date of final payment.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="6" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Legal fees and costs at 30% of the sum to be
 recovered.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Plaintiff claim to have shipped two caterpillars to
the 2nd Defendant as consignee to the port of Tema from the port of
Antwerp on the 18th of February, 2012. The goods according to the
Applicant arrived at the port of Tema in March, 2012 but the consignee failed
to pay for the tractors and wrote several letters to the Applicant for a
release of the original bill of lading whereupon Applicant wrote to the
Assistant Commissioner in charge of Tema port for permission to re-export the
tractors which permission was granted for the re-exportation. And whiles in the
view of the Applicant such orders of re-exportation was being processed, the 1st
Respondent purported to have confiscated, removed and sold one of the tractors.
That the second tractor was also auctioned notwithstanding the pendency of an
application for inspection of the second tractor hence leading to the action
for a recovery of the monetary value of the tractors sold by the 1st
Respondent. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>The grounds upon which a summary judgment application
may be granted by the court are well known. It is stated under Order 14 Rule 1
of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“Where in an
action a defendant has been served with a statement of claim and has filed
appearance, the plaintiff may on notice apply to the Court for judgment against
the defendant on the ground that the defendant has no defence to a claim
included in the writ, or to a particular part of such a claim, or that the
defendant has no defence to such a claim or part of a claim, except as to the
amount of any damages claimed”.<o:p></o:p>