Vivo Energy Ghana Limited v Hope Capital Limited (CM/RPC/0703/22) [2025] GHAHC 93 (21 May 2025)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL DIVISION 6) HELD IN ACCRA ON WEDNESDAY THE 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE SEDINA AGBEMAVA SUITNO.: CM/RPC/0703/22 VIVOENERGY GHANA LIMITED … PLAINTIFF VRS. HOPE CAPITALLIMITED … DEFENDANT JUDGMENT Plaintiff closes its case and the suit is hereby closed. I will hereby enter Judgment for the Plaintiff on its reliefs. The suit remained largely uncontested. The Defendant failed to appear for any of the hearings or challenge the Plaintiff or the evidence led, eventhoughit is represented by legalCounselontherecord. It will not make for prudent judicial economy of time for me to adjourn to write a reasoned Judgment as by failing to subject the Plaintiff’s testimony and evidence to crossexamination, the Defendant is deemed tohaveadmitted the Plaintiff’scase. There is absolutely no need to prove an admitted fact. See the case of Western Hardwoodvs. West African Enterprises Limited [1998-99]SCGLR 105. Page 1of3SuitNo.CM/RPC/0703/22VivoEnergyGhanaLimitedVrs.HopeCapitalLimited I have also found no reason to question the credibility of the Plaintiff’s testimony and so I accept the testimony of the Plaintiff and enter Judgment for it on its reliefs asfollows; The order is hereby made against the Defendant to within Seven (7) days from today submit to the Plaintiff a comprehensive report on all accounts it handled for and on behalf ofthePlaintiff. The Order is also made for the reconciliation of all accounts handled by the Defendant for andonbehalf ofthe Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is also entitled to the recovery of all monies collected or paid to the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff with interest on the said sums from the date of receipt by the Defendant till the date offinalpayment. Since the Law presumes general damages as a natural consequence of Defendants’ wrongfulact, I find that thePlaintiff is entitled to it, having found for it onitsclaim. Following the principle in Royal Dutch Airlines & Anor vs Farmex Ltd [1989-90] 2 GLR 623, to restore the Plaintiff, as far as money could do it, to the position he would have been in had the damage not occurred, I will award the sum of One Hundred andFifty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢150,000.00)asgeneraldamages. CostsofThirty Thousand Cedis (GH¢30,000.00) toPlaintiff. (SGD) SEDINA AGBEMAVA J JUSTICEOF THE HIGH COURT Page 2of3SuitNo.CM/RPC/0703/22VivoEnergyGhanaLimitedVrs.HopeCapitalLimited COUNSEL 1. MAKAFUI KOFI DZIMABI WITH DOMINIC SREM-SAI HOLDING BRIEF FORREINDORFTWUMASI ANKRAHFORTHE PLAINTIFFPRESENT 2. NO LEGAL REPRESENTATIONFORTHE DEFENDANT LISTOF CASES 1. WESTERN HARDWOOD VS. WEST AFRICAN ENTERPRISES LIMITED [1998-99] SCGLR 105. 2. ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES & ANOR VS FARMEX LIMITED [1989-90] 2 GLR 623. Page 3of3SuitNo.CM/RPC/0703/22VivoEnergyGhanaLimitedVrs.HopeCapitalLimited