GRAMELLINI F. LLIS PA - 47100 FORCI ITALY VIA RAVEGNANA vs. KPONE LOBSTER EXPORT CO. LTD [2020]DLCA8849

GRAMELLINI F. LLIS PA - 47100 FORCI ITALY VIA RAVEGNANA vs. KPONE LOBSTER EXPOR... [2020]DLCA8849

Date	2020-02-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/140/2018
Citation No.	[2020]DLCA8849

OFOE J.A

HONYENUGA J.A

GAISIE J.A

PETRINA DEFIA FOR APPELLANT

PHILIP GLAH FOR RESPONDENT

[2020]DLCA8849
																																						<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" >GRAMELLINI F. LLIS PA - 47100 FORCI ITALY
VIA RAVEGNANA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KPONE LOBSTER EXPORT CO.
LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, 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.
H1/140/2018&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; &nbsp;DATE: 27TH FEBRUARY, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>PETRINA
DEFIA FOR APPELLANT<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">

PHILIP GLAH FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>OFOE
J.A, HONYENUGA J.A, GAISIE J.A<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>OFOE, J.A:<o:p></o:p>INTRODUCTION<o:p></o:p>There is no doubt on the
records that the parties entered into a type of oral transaction in which the
appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) was to supply seafoods to
the respondent (who we will refer to as the plaintiff) against prepayment by
the plaintiff. In respect to what the parties referred to as technical goods,
while the plaintiff contended that it supplied such goods on the request of the
defendant, the defendant denied any such engagement with the plaintiff and sought
strict proof thereof. Details of this part of the case will unfold later in
this judgment. But both parties agree that their business relationship spanned
between 1998 to 2008/2009. <o:p></o:p>The plaintiff alleges that
arising out of this commercial agreement it paid some monies to the defendant
who did not supply the seafoods and has also refused, despite incessant
requests, to refund the monies in terms of their understanding. Plaintiff makes
the same allegation in respect of technical goods it claims it supplied the
defendant which cost was to be paid for with seafood supplies. <o:p></o:p>It was to claim these monies
paid for which no seafoods were supplied and cost of technical goods supplied
for which no seafoods were supplied that the plaintiff went to the High Court
on the19th August 2009 claiming as per its writ of summons, to wit:<o:p></o:p>PLAINTIFF’S
CLAIM<o:p></o:p>“1
Damages for breach of contract<o:p></o:p>2. An
order to compel the defendant to pay the sum of 209,954.70 Euros owing on the
running account<o:p></o:p>3.
Alternatively, restitution of 209,954.70 Euros on the basis of the defendant’s
unjust enrichment in that sum<o:p></o:p>4.
Special Damages<o:p></o:p>5. Interest
on the sum of 209,954.70Euros at the prevailing bank commercial rare from 28
/4/2009 until date of final payment<o:p></o:p>6.
Further or other reliefs as the court may deem fit and<o:p></o:p>7.
Cost”.<o:p></o:p>It had judgment at the trial
court in the following terms:<o:p></o:p>“I
find and hold that the plaintiff has proved on a balance of probabilities that
by the close of its business dealings with the defendant in January 2009, the
defendant owed it the principal sum of 207,431.10 Euros. Defendant is ordered
to pay plaintiff the sum of 207,431,10 Euros with interest at the Euro rate of
Ecobank from 31st January 2009 to date of final payment. The
plaintiff also claimed for damages and loss of profit. I find no evidence warranting
the grant of these claims.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff’s case is upheld as proved, the defence introduced in the final
amended defence is dismissed, and the third party is discharged. Cost of GHC
30,000.00 to plaintiff and GHC7000.00 to 3rd parties”.<o:p></o:p>The defendant is aggrieved
at this decision of the trial judge and has appealed to this court alleging as
follows:<o:p></o:p>“GROUNDS
OF APPEAL<o:p></o:p>a.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The learned trial judge
erred in failing to consider and hold that a substantial part of the
plaintiff’s claim including that of supply of technical goods was statute
barred vide the Limitation Act, (NRCD54)<o:p></o:p>b.