STEELCO GHANA LTD vs. GMT SHIPPING GH LTD, RED SEA MARITIME SERVICES AND GOLDEN GATE SERVICES LTD [2019]DLHC7556

STEELCO GHANA LTD vs. GMT SHIPPING GH LTD, RED SEA MARITIME SERVICES AND GOLDEN... [2019]DLHC7556

Date	2019-01-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ815/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7556

JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

KWESI BLAY WITH EMMANUEL KUMI FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT

[2019]DLHC7556
																																						<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" >STEELCO GHANA
LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GMT SHIPPING GH LTD, RED SEA MARITIME SERVICES AND GOLDEN GATE
SERVICES LTD<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERRCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO. GJ815/2019 &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 31ST JANUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

KWESI
BLAY WITH EMMANUEL KUMI FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

JEROME
NOBLE-NKRUMAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>Maritime- Damage to cargo<o:p></o:p>It is the plaintiff’s case that it ordered
a consignment of 260 metric tons of Cold Rolled Sheets [CRS] in 23 bundles from
Belgium. Plaintiff says this consignment arrived at the Port of Tema on the 29th
of March 2012 and goes further that upon taking delivery of the consignment it
observed that three out of the 23 bundles were damaged rendering them unusable
for the purpose for which they were intended.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff has contended that the 1st defendant as clearing
agent, the 2nd defendant as the handler of the cargo and the 3rd
defendant as the stevedore company that handled the cargo all failed in their
duties they owed to the plaintiff in delivery of the cargo in good and usable
condition and are therefore liable for damages caused to the plaintiffs goods.
<o:p></o:p>The 1st defendant has denied
the plaintiffs’ claims and says the consignment was brought into the country by
Conti GMT Shipping Ltd, its principal. It adds that the consignment arrived in
safe and good condition and were received by 2nd defendant as shore
handlers from the 3rd defendant.<o:p></o:p>The 2nd defendant as Receipt
Delivery Services provider was responsible for receiving cargo from the stevedores,
for onward delivery to consignee. 2nd defendant says it was the 3rd
defendant which acted as stevedore for the consignment in issue and that at the
material time that 2nd defendant received the bundles of CRS from 3rd
defendant the said bundles were already damaged.<o:p></o:p>The 3rd defendant in also
denying the plaintiffs claim says it carried out a direct mode of delivery by
use of a wire sling and that none of the 23 bundles of CRS were landed damaged.<o:p></o:p>The following issues were set down for
trial:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether
or not the damage to the three bundles of CRS was caused prior to the delivery
to the plaintiff <o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether
or not the defendants are liable for the damage<o:p></o:p>Whether
or not the damage to the three bundles of CRS was caused prior to the delivery
to the plaintiff &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>It is the plaintiff’s case that 3, of
the CRS were delivered damaged, to it. Plaintiffs exhibit E is the Bad Order
Form which describes 3 bundles belonging to the plaintiff as ‘landed damaged.&nbsp; Plaintiff has further tendered exhibit C. This
is a Landing Tally Sheet issued by Transmarine Consultancy and Inspection Ghana
Ltd [TCL]. This indicates no damage.<o:p></o:p>However relying on the Master of the
vessels note on exhibit E that ‘all
damages to cargo was caused by the stevedores due to rough handling. Ship is no
responsible for the damage’, the plaintiffs case has been &nbsp;that since &nbsp;3rd defendant&nbsp; was the stevedore and it was the first to
have physical contact with the cargo upon arrival it must be held.<o:p></o:p>