INTERNATIONAL ROM LIMITED vs. VODAFONE GHANA LTD. AND FIDELITY BANK LTD [2019]DLCA10037

Date	2019-11-21
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H1/97/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLCA10037

B. F. ACKAH-YENSU JA (PRESIDING)

CECILIA SOWAH JA

POKU-ACHEAMPONG JA

EMMANUEL AMOFA WITH G. O. YAME AND YAW OWUSU ABABIO FOR PLAINTIFF/RESP/APPELLANT

TONY LITHUR FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

[2019]DLCA10037
																																						<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" >INTERNATIONAL ROM LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESP/
APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>VODAFONE GHANA LTD. AND FIDELITY BANK LTD<o:p></o:p>(1ST DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT/RESP/2ND
DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: H1/97/2019&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:&nbsp; 21ST NOVEMBER, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL
AMOFA WITH G. O. YAME AND YAW OWUSU ABABIO FOR PLAINTIFF/RESP/APPELLANT <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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">TONY
LITHUR FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>B. F. ACKAH-YENSU JA
(PRESIDING), CECILIA SOWAH JA, POKU-ACHEAMPONG JA<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;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;B.
ACKAH-YENSU, JA<o:p></o:p>The critical issue
raised for determination in this appeal is whether there is any financial
liability of the 1st Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter referred to
simply as the “Respondent”) under the Judgment of the High Court dated May 15,
2013, which was wholly affirmed by this Court and the Supreme Court subject
however to a variation in the award made in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant
(also to be referred to simply as the “Appellant” hereinafter), for the benefit
of the 2nd Defendant to the effect that the Appellant and Respondent
hereinafter be jointly liable to the 2nd Defendant.&nbsp; The instant dispute has been occasioned by
the respective conflicting interpretation of the Judgment and Ruling of the
Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;FACTS<o:p></o:p>The factual
background of this case is this:<o:p></o:p>By a Writ of Summons
issued on 19th August 2009, the Appellant herein claimed against the
Respondent as follows:<o:p></o:p>“(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; … a total outstanding amount of
US$4,893,057.08 being unpaid bills by the Defendant on due dates arising from
works executed by Plaintiff as contained in the contract of 17th
December, 2003 with its amendment and 13th May, 2008 respectively
for works executed and already taken over by Defendant but has refused to
settle despite numerous reminders.<o:p></o:p>(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order for account or reconciliation
of accounts between the two parties in respect of the two named contracts to verify
the outstanding unpaid bills.<o:p></o:p>(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Declaration that the said termination of
the contracts of 13th May, 2008 and 28th May 2009 is
illegal.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (iv)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Special
and General Damages for breach of contract.<o:p></o:p>(v)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest at the prevailing interest rate
up to the date of final judgment.<o:p></o:p>(vi)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cost”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In the course of the
proceedings, the 2nd Defendant applied to be joined to the suit
contending that it advanced four (4) separate facilities to the Appellant
herein to enable it execute some jobs for the Respondent.&nbsp; That, the Appellant undertook to assign the
proceeds of the contract with the Respondent to pay off the loans obtained from
the 2nd Defendant.&nbsp; Respondent
irrevocably undertook to pay all contract proceeds in the joint names of the Appellant
and the 2nd Defendant.&nbsp; It was
the case of the 2nd Defendant that the Appellant and the Respondent
failed to honour their respective contracts.&nbsp;
The 2nd Defendant therefore counterclaimed against the Appellant
for the recovery of the following: (i)
US$370,000 (term loan); (ii) GH¢2,365,679.29 (term loan); (iii) GH¢95,479.60
(overdraft); and (iv) GH¢226,140.70 (auto loan).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;At the end of the
trial, the High Court entered judgment for the Appellant against the Respondent
for:<o:p></o:p>“(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The recovery of the sum of US$4,893,057.08
or its cedi equivalent being the adjudged indebtedness of the 1st
Defendant to Plaintiff for works done under the contracts aforementioned in
this judgme</main>