AFRICA AUTOMOBILE LIMITED vs. TEMA OIL REFINERY LIMITED [2018]DLHC3907

Date	2018-03-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC/09/07
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3907

GEORGE BUADI J HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL 5) ACCRA

FRANK DAVIES WITH PATRICK ANNIN FOR PLAINTIFF/EXECUTION CREDITOR APPLICANT

AGYABENG AKRASI WITH DIANA AMEFINU FOR DEFENDANT/J/DEBTOR RESPONDENT

[2018]DLHC3907
																																						<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" >AFRICA AUTOMOBILE
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TEMA OIL REFINERY
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION FIVE), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT NO. RPC/09/07&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; 21ST
MARCH, 2018<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>RULING<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1.0 Background <o:p></o:p>1.1 The decision of the court is in furtherance of the decision of
the Supreme Court dated 29 June 2011, which varied the decision of the Court of
Appeal1, which had earlier on its part varied the decision of the
trial Commercial Court dated 12 August 2008. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s
decision, the plaintiff judgment execution creditor revised the entry of
judgment. The amount payable as interest 1 Dated 11 March 2010 accruable
on the principal sum and other reliefs the court granted has the bone of contention
between the parties. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1.2 In furtherance of the entry of judgment, the parties had come
up with differing amounts as interest due and payable over the period. Whilst
defendant judgment debtor in its computation arrived at a figure of
GHc6,764,974.73 as net sum amount due plaintiff judgment creditor as at 30 May
2016, plaintiff judgment creditor on its part came up with a threefold figure
of GHc19,470,051.20 as at 31 June 2016. See
Exhibits ‘PKE 2’ and ‘PKE 3’. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1.3 Desirous to bring a determinative end to the differing amounts
each party claims as due and payable over the period, the judgment execution
creditor, the applicant herein applied, which this court on 8 February 2017
granted not only for verification of interest computation, but also for appointment
of Director of Finance, Judicial Service, Accra as the Auditor (Court witness)
to determine how much on the face of the judgement of the Supreme Court is due
as interest on the principal judgment debt due or payable to the plaintiff
applicant. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1.4 Per the order of the court, the court witness was to undertake
the exercise on the reliance and use of the revised entry of judgment that span
the three superior courts2 Exhibit ‘PKE 1’, particularly that of the
final judgment on the matter by the Supreme Court, as well as interest as
computed by the parties. See Exhibits
‘PKE 2’, and ‘PKE 3’. The object of the exercise, indeed the main issue
before the court is to ascertain how much the judgment debtor is to pay as
interest due, and also as the total judgment debt payable by defendant to
plaintiff. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>2 At the court’s sitting on 22 March 2017, the court adopted the
witness report, marked initially as Exhibit CE1 covering the period March 2017.
I find as a fact however that, by serial orders of the court, Exhibit ‘CE1’ had
since been updated and revised periodically by the witness in correspondence
with the court’s sittings. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>2 The trial High Court, Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. <o:p></o:p>