WOODHOUSE LTD. vs. AIRTEL GHANA LTD. [2018]DLSC4524

Date	2018-12-12
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/08/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLSC4524

ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING)

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

APPAU JSC

O. K. OSAFO-BUABENG FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

K. AMOAKO-ADJEI FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2018]DLSC4524
																																						<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" >WOODHOUSE LTD.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AIRTEL GHANA LTD.<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. J4/08/2018 &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;&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>O.
K. OSAFO-BUABENG FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/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">

K.
AMOAKO-ADJEI FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>ANSAH
JSC (PRESIDING), ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, 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>BAFFOE-BONNIE,
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>In this judgment the defendant/appellant/appellant
shall be referred to as the defendant while the plaintiff/respondent/respondent
shall be referred to as the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>At the High Court the plaintiff’s claim against
the defendant was for<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An
order directed at defendant to pay the sum of US$2,225,600 being an amount due
plaintiff as at 31st December 2012 by virtue of the agreement dated
5th January 2009.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Interest
on the sum of money from January 2009 to date of final removal of all the seven
20 Footer containers on plaintiffs land at the prevailing commercial rate.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Damages
for loss of use of plaintiffs land.<o:p></o:p>The High Court entered judgment for the respondent
in the sum as endorsed on the writ of summons with interest to be calculated.
The appeal to the Court of Appeal did not yield much for the appellant as the
Court virtually confirmed the findings of the High Court except a slight
variation in the quantum of award. The appellant has further appealed to this
court on a number of grounds.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>FACTS OF THE CASE.<o:p></o:p>The facts of this case as settled by the trial
High Court are as follows. The parties were business partners. The plaintiff’s
case was that by an agreement in writing dated the 5th day of
January 2000 made between the parties herein, the plaintiff offered defendant
temporary storage of ten 20ft containers belonging to the defendant. The
agreement indicated that the first seven days was free and wouldn’t attract any
fees. Thereafter a daily fee of $200 would be paid on each container that
remained on the premises. It was also contended that the first 2 containers
were removed after 6 months and another was removed after a year. The rest
remained on the premises until plaintiff issued the writ claiming an
accumulated amount of $2,225,600.00 being defendant’s indebtedness to him as at
31st December, 2012.<o:p></o:p>The defendant denied plaintiff’s claim and put
forth several defences. The defendant said that it did not know the plaintiff
company in respect of the land and that ZED NETWORK LTD, another company
belonging to the MD of the plaintiff company was the one they dealt with in
respect of the land. ZED held sole distributorship rights with regard to
defendant’s products and so since the containers were all branded in the name
of the defendants and they were empty, ZED permitted defendants to place the
containers there for free. Sometime later their business relationship went cold
leading to the defendant terminating the sole distributorship agreement and
bringing an action in court against ZED and its MD, George Boateng. Defendant
opined that this current action has b</main>