ATC (GHANA) LTD & 2 ORS (PLAINTIFFS) vs. VIETNAM OCEAN SHIPPING & 4 ORS (DEFENDANTS) [2019]DLHC7122

ATC (GHANA) LTD & 2 ORS (PLAINTIFFS) vs. VIETNAM OCEAN SHIPPING & 4 ORS (DEFENDA... [2019]DLHC7122

Date	2019-04-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO: OCC/57/12
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7122

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J

KWEKU EYIAH ESQ. FOR 5TH DEFENDANT.

KWAME NKRUMAH BOTSIO ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFFS ABSENT

[2019]DLHC7122
																																						<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" >ATC (GHANA) LTD &amp; 2
ORS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>VIETNAM OCEAN SHIPPING &amp; 4 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), 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">

SUIT
NO: OCC/57/12 &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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 29TH
APRIL, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>KWEKU EYIAH ESQ., FOR 5TH
DEFENDANT.<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">

KWAME
NKRUMAH BOTSIO ESQ., FOR PLAINTIFFS ABSENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A.
ASIEDU, J <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="margin-bottom:0in;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:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>By
an amended writ of summons the plaintiffs claim against the defendants:<o:p></o:p>(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The value of and
or expenditure incurred in respect of the bagged rice respectively mishandled,
non-delivered or delivered discrepant/damaged out of consignments for 1st
Plaintiff shipped to Tema Port per the Vessels M.V. Ocean star in or about
February 2011 and M.V.Phuong Dong in or about September, 2010 and or stored at
ATC Warehouse, VALCO Road, Tema.<o:p></o:p>(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Further or in
the alternative in respect of the 1st defendant the sum of $13,287.44
being loss suffered and or damages for the failure of the said M.V. Ocean Star,
its owners, agents and servants to properly and carefully load, handle, store,
keep, care and discharge the goods carried and or alternatively further
negligence in or about the carriage and preservation and or discharge of the
rice.<o:p></o:p>(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Further or in
the alternative against the 2nd defendant the sum of $4,656.18 the 3rd
Defendant the sum of $8,185.24 being value of rice lost and or damages for the
loss and damages suffered resulting from the negligence and lack of care and or
breach of duty of the said 2nd and 3rd Defendants
respectively.<o:p></o:p>(iv)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Further the sum
of 81, 197.40 being rice lost from the warehouse on account of 5th
Defendant and or in the alternative damages against 5th defendant
for complicity and or gross negligence and dereliction of duty in providing
security for the warehouse at Valco Road, Tema.<o:p></o:p>(v)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Interest on all
sums found due and costs on a full indemnity basis. <o:p></o:p>After
the close of pleadings and the inability of the parties to settle the case at
pre-trial, the matter was set down for hearing and the parties ordered at the
case management stage to file their witness statements among others. It appears
that the 1st plaintiff did not file a witness statement. The 2nd
and the 3rd plaintiffs gave evidence through their representatives
and closed their case. In the course of the proceedings, applications were
successfully made for the 2nd and the 3rd plaintiffs, who
are foreign companies, to furnish security for the costs of the action in
favour of the defendants. Eventually, the suit mounted by the 2nd
and 3rd plaintiffs was dismissed for their failure to provide
security as ordered by the court. The 1st plaintiff then purported
to continue with the prosecution of the suit against the defendants. </main>