CAL BANK LIMITED vs. DRAM OIL & TRADING LTD, & 6 ORS [2019]DLHC10093

Date	2019-05-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BFS/22/2013
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10093

JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J

MCKEOWN AMENANOR-GBESE FOR PLAINTIFF (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF SHADRACH ARHIN).

MARIAN SERWAA MENSAH FOR 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 5TH AND 6TH DEFENDANTS.

KWAME AGATI FOR 7TH DEFENDANT

[2019]DLHC10093
																																						<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" >CAL
BANK LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DRAM OIL
&amp; TRADING LTD, &amp; 6 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION, 5) 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="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">KWAME
AGATI FOR 7TH DEFENDANT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE GEORGE
BUADI J<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="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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;1.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Background<o:p></o:p>1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The decision on the matter today is
pursuant to the final judgment after trial of the court differently constituted
dated 18 May 2015<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Cal%20Bank%20v%20Dram%20Oil%20&amp;amp;%20Ors%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> that as part of the
judgment ordered parties in the suit to appoint an auditor to audit accounts of
7th defendant to ascertain its indebtedness to plaintiff. Brief background
history of the suit I believe is necessary to appreciate the issue that has
been placed before the court for determination, and the expectations from the
court on the subject matter <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The brief facts I can state here are
that, based upon security terms that were provided by 2nd, 3rd,
4th, 5th, and 6th defendants, plaintiff bank
granted credit facility of USD$13 million to 1st defendant, an oil
trading company for import of fuel for supply to Ghana Oil Company (GOIL).<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Cal%20Bank%20v%20Dram%20Oil%20&amp;amp;%20Ors%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a> GOIL.
GOIL who was billed to off-take the fuel product pulled out of the transaction.
The pull out necessitated the execution of a tripartite agreement with 1st
defendant, and 7th defendant, a bulk distribution company, who agreed
to hold the oil product together with all receivables and under recoveries from
National Petroleum Authority (NPA) for and on behalf of plaintiff bank and to
pay all monies accruing from the sale of the cargo including under recoveries
into a designated account of 1st defendant with the plaintiff bank. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The court in its judgment found that 1st
defendant failed in its duty under the agreement, and so at page 15 paragraph 5
of the judgment, the court held that “[i]t is not in dispute that 1st
defendant owes plaintiff [as] she admitted owing the outstanding amount”. 1st
defendant’s claim however is that the debt remained outstanding because not
unknown to plaintiff, 7th defendant failed to comply with the terms of
the tripartite agreement and chose to hold on to payments from NPA that would
have liquidated the outstanding balance under the facility. Based on the
finding, the court granted plaintiff’s reliefs except that, to ascertain the
level of total payments meant for NPA that 7th defendant withheld, the
court ordered the parties<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Cal%20Bank%20v%20Dram%20Oil%20&amp;amp;%20Ors%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a> to
appoint an auditing firm to audit 7th defendant’s accounts relating
to payments, receivables emergency cargo, under recoveries that 7th
defendant received under the tripartite agreement, which it failed to pay into
the designated accounts of 1st defendant. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The audit firm to be a</main>