ESSENEY SOCRATES KWADJO vs. SPEEDLINE STEVEDORING CO. LIMITED [2018]DLSC4129

Date	2018-12-12
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/05/2017
Citation No.	[2018]DLSC4129

ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING)

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

APPAU JSC

D. K. AMELEY WITH HIM DESMOND SACKEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT /APPELLANT.

VICTORIA BARTH WITH HER BENEDICTA AKITA FOR THE DEFENDANT/ APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.

[2018]DLSC4129
																																						<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" >ESSENEY SOCRATES KWADJO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SPEEDLINE STEVEDORING
CO. LIMITED<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, 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. J4/05/2017 &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;DATE: 12TH DECEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>D. K. AMELEY WITH HIM
DESMOND SACKEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT /APPELLANT.<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">

VICTORIA
BARTH WITH HER BENEDICTA AKITA FOR THE DEFENDANT/ APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>ANSAH
JSC (PRESIDING), ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC,&nbsp; AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC, AND APPAU JSC<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;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>ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC:-<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal against a judgment of the Court
of Appeal, Accra, dated 12 March 2015. The background facts to the appeal are
that the plaintiff/respondent/appellant [Plaintiff] is a Ghanaian scrap dealer
resident in Italy. In July 2011, he shipped a 40 foot container of vehicle
spare parts to the Takoradi Port. The defendant/ appellant/ respondent [Defendant]
was appointed stevedores of the cargo. During the process of moving the cargo
at the port the container fell heavily onto the deck of the vessel and got
damaged along with some of its contents.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In
negotiations after the accident, the defendant accepted responsibility for the
loss and the plaintiff released the whole container to the defendant in return
for payment of money as settlement for his loss. A dispute arose over the
appropriate quantum to be paid to the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff was claiming from the defendant GH¢ 150.000.00 as the value of the damaged
spare parts, GH¢ 50,000.00 as anticipated profits, cost of air tickets to and from Italy to Ghana and
damages for breach of contract and interests. <o:p></o:p>At the commencement of the trial, the defendant
per its counsel informed the court that it would not contest the issue of
negligence but contest the quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>The trial judge entered judgment in favour of the
plaintiff for an award of GH¢150,000 .00 as the value of the plaintiff’s goods
negligently damaged by the defendants, GH¢50,000.00 as anticipated profits;
GH¢10,000.00 as nominal general damages for breach of contract and cost of GH¢5,000.00.
The judge also ordered that 24% of the GH¢150,000.00 be deducted as proper duty
payable on the goods imported into the country by the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>The defendant being aggrieved appealed against the
judgment of the High Court and on 12 March, 2015 the Court of Appeal allowed
the appeal by varying the awards. The plaintiff being dissatisfied filed the
instance appeal and pursuant to leave granted on 20 December, 2016, the
following grounds of appeal were filed:<o:p></o:p>GROUNDS OF
APPEAL<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:3.0pt;margin-bottom:1.5pt;text-align:
 justify;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">The Court of Appeal erred in law when it held
 that Exhibits ‘A ‘– ‘E’ were only invoices and therefore were not
 authentic to verify that the corresponding prices to the goods on the said
 invoice did constitute the actual price, when indeed the goods indicated
 on the invoices were all shipped to Ghana, and there was no other credible
 evidence to contradict the same.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:3.0pt;margin-bottom:1.5pt;text-align:
 justify;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal
 erred in law and occasioned a grievous miscarriage of justice when they
 relied on Exhibit ‘3’ as authentic when there was ample evidence on record
 to show that there were grave and obvious inconsistencies and
 contradictions on the information on the said exhibit.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:3.0pt;margin-bottom:1.5pt;text-align:
 justify;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">The learned justices erred in law when they
 held that the value of the consignment was only nine thousand five hundred
 US Dollars (US$9,500.00) and by such holding allowed the
 defendant/Appellant/Respondent to benefit from its own negligence.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:3.0pt;margin-bottom:1.5pt;text-align:
 justify;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">The learned Justices erred in law when they
 held that Mr. Herbert Agyapong, the original agent for the
 Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant continued to be the agent for the
 Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant even after the whole consignment had been
 transferred to the Defendant/Appellant/Respondent and they had taken over
 the goods as a consignee in all its respects.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Consideration<o:p></o:p><p</main>