DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VRS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER (CM/RPC/1169/2019) [2025] GHAHC 29 (24 January 2025)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION (COURT 1) OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ACCRA, HELD ON FRIDAY THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE SHEILA MINTA SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. - PLAINTIFF VRS. 1. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. - DEFENDANTS 2. MESUNA DELIMAN --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION This is a debt recovery claim in which the Plaintiff is demanding from the Defendants the balance of outstanding debt against them. In the Plaintiff’s Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim issued on 8th August, 2019 it claimed against the Defendants the sum of GHS10,986,788.02 being the cost of petroleum products supplied and unpaid for together with interest on the said sum on compound interest of 27% per month from 26th April, 2019 and damages for breach of contract. In the Defendants’ Amended Statement of Defence filed on 19th July, 2023 they deny that 2nd Defendant is a shareholder of the 1st Defendant company and also stated that the company with whom the Plaintiff entered into this transaction was Deliman & Co. and not Deliman Oil Company Ltd, 1st Defendant herein. It appears the Plaintiff has two (2) suits in different Courts, one against Deliman & Co. Ltd and the other against Deliman Oil Company Ltd. In response to the Plaintiff’s claim the Defendants admit receiving products from Plaintiff in the name of Deliman & Co. Ltd. on credit but deny owing the sum alleged as Plaintiff had Pag e 1 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. refused to reconcile accounts with the Defendants. According to the Defendants there was no agreement between the parties to charge interest on any outstanding balance at the rate of 27% interest compounded per month. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE The Plaintiff is in the business of bulk oil distribution and the 2nd Defendant is the shareholder of the 1st Defendant Company. According to the Plaintiff sometime in 2012, 2nd Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supply petroleum products to them on credit basis which they did. Plaintiff states that it was a term of the agreement between the parties that interest would apply on default payment at 27% compound interest for each month of default. Plaintiff again averred that pursuant to the agreement between the parties, sometime in May 2012 supplies of petroleum products were made to the Defendant on a 30-day credit basis for which initial payments were made by the Defendants to Plaintiff in accordance with the Credit Sale Agreement. Unfortunately, the Defendants stopped the payments per the agreed arrangement of the parties and as at 26th April, 2013 their indebtedness, according to the Plaintiff stood at GHS7,188,948.90, out of which the 1st Defendant paid GHS5,165,042.65 with an outstanding balance of GHS2,024,906.27 unsettled. Hence the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants as follows:- a. Recovery of the sum of GH¢10,986,788.02 being the cost of petroleum products supplied the Defendants with interest. b. Interest on the said sum from 26 April, 2019 till date of final payment at 27% compound interest per month. c. General damages for breach of contract. d. Cost of these proceedings, including counsel’s fees on a full indemnity basis. In support of the Plaintiff’s claim the following Exhibits were tendered in evidence: 1. Exhibit “A” – 1st Defendant’s Company profile from the Registrar-General’s Department dated 5th July, 2019. Pag e 2 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. 2. Exhibit “B” – Offer letter for the supply of Petroleum Products termed “Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 19th June, 2012” by the Plaintiff. 3. Exhibit “C” – Accounts of the other company of the 2nd Defendant with the Plaintiff. 4. Exhibit “D” – Copies of unpaid invoices issued to the other company of the 2nd Defendant. 5. Exhibit “E” – Demand letter written to the other company of the 2nd Defendant by Plaintiff dated 18th December, 2013. 6. Exhibit “F” – Copies of cheques issued by 1st Defendant to Plaintiff. SUMMARY OF DEFENDANTS’ CASE The Defendants deny that 2nd Defendant is a shareholder of the 1st Defendant Company and also state that the Plaintiff did business with the Deliman & Co. and not Deliman Oil Company Limited and therefore 1st Defendant is not a proper party to this suit. They also averred that the 2nd Defendant was acting for the 1st Defendant as its Managing Director. The Defendants in their Statement of Defence filed on 20th November, 2019 admitted receiving products from the Plaintiff but in their amended Statement of Defence filed on 19th July, 2023 alleged that 1st Defendant is not a proper party to this suit. They however alleged that all debts owed to Plaintiff for petroleum products supplied have been paid and added that attempts at meeting with Plaintiff to reconcile accounts between the parties have failed. They further deny any agreement to pay interest on any outstanding debt at 27% compounded. As at the time of writing this address the Defendants have still not filed their Written Address having been given several opportunities to do so. But pursuant to the order of Court dated 18th December, 2024 the Defendants’ on 22nd January 2025 caused to be filed their Written Submission on the effect of Exhibits 1 and 2 on the contractual arrangement between the parties. In their submissions they argued that Exhibits 1 and 2 clearly shows that Deliman & Co. Ltd. and Deliman Oil Company Ltd are separate and distinct companies and one cannot be sued for the liabilities of the Pag e 3 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. other. That having sued the wrong party the case has to be struck out and cited the cases of Emmanuel Makwasinga vrs. Bwanaally Ibrahim (Suit No 21/02/2024 delivered on 29th February 2024. In support of Defendants claim they tendered the following Exhibits: - 1. Exhibit “1” – Certificate to Commence Business (Deliman’s & Company Ltd.) dated 7th February, 2013. 2. Exhibit “2” – Certificate to Commence Business (Deliman Oil Company Ltd.) dated 3rd December, 2015. ISSUES SET DOWN FOR TRIAL At the close of pleadings and settlement having failed at Pre-Trial Conference, the following issues were set down for trial: - 1. Whether or not the Plaintiff supplied the 1st Defendant petroleum products worth Seven Million, One Hundred and Eighty-Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Forty-Eight Ghana Cedis, Ninety Pesewas (GH¢7,188,948.90) out of which the Defendants have paid an amount of Five Million, One Hundred and Sixty-Four Thousand Forty-Two Ghana Cedis, Sixty-Five Pesewas (GH¢5,164,02.65). 2. Whether or not by the terms of the Credit Sale Agreement executed between Plaintiff and Defendants, the parties agreed to the compound interest rate of 27% per month on petroleum products supplied to the Defendants by Plaintiff? 3. Whether or not per the Credit Sales Agreement, the 1st Defendant was required to pay for petroleum products supplied it by the Plaintiff within 30-days? 4. Whether or not the Defendants are in breach of the Credit Sale Agreement? 5. Whether or not the 1st Defendant was set up by the 2nd Defendant to perpetuate fraud? 6. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to recover general damages for breach of contract? 7. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Ten Million, Nine Hundred and Eighty-Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Eighty-Eight Ghana Cedis, Two Pesewas (GH¢10,986,788.02) from the Defendants? Pag e 4 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF For the Plaintiff to have a determination made in its favour, it is enjoined to proof its case in accordance with the standard as required by law being the preponderance of probabilities, see Section 12(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act. This proof is “that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court by which it is convinced that the evidence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence”. The foregoing is encapsulated in the Supreme Court case of Gihoc vrs. Hanna Assi [2005-2006] SCGLR 458 at 485, where, while referencing the cases of Odametey vrs. Clocuh [1989-90] 1 GLR, 14; Odonkor vrs. Amartei [1992-93] GBR 59; Tuakwa vrs. Bosom [2001-2002] SCGLR 61, Sophia Akuffo, JSC in her judgment stated thus:- “Since the enactment of NRCD 323, therefore, except otherwise specified by statute, the standard of proof (the burden of persuasion) in all civil matters is by a preponderance of the probabilities based on a determination of whether or not the party with the burden of producing evidence on the issue has, on all the evidence, satisfied the judge of the probable existence of the fact in issue…. Hence, by virtue of the provisions of NRCD 323, in all civil cases, judgement might be given in favour of a party on the preponderance of the probabilities …” The Supreme Court has also explained in the case of Okudzeto Ablakwa (NO. 2) V. Attorney General & Anor [2012] 2 SCGLR 845 @ 867 that:- “If a person goes to court to make an allegation, the onus is on him to lead evidence to prove that allegation, unless the allegation is admitted. If he fails to do that, the ruling on that allegation will go against him. Stated more explicitly, a party cannot win a case in court if the case is based on an allegation which he fails to prove or establish. This rule is further buttressed by section 17 (b) which, emphasizes on the party on whom lies the duty to start leading evidence…” Also, in the case of Adjetey Agbosu & Ors vrs. Kotey & Ors [2003-2004] SCGLR 420 Brobbey JSC (as he then was) explained the evidentiary obligation a Defendant in defence to a claim as follows:- Pag e 5 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. “A litigant who is a Defendant in a civil case does not need to prove anything. The Plaintiff who took the Defendant to court has to proof what he claims he is entitled to from the Defendant. At the same time, if the court has to make a determination of a fact or of an issue and that determination depends on evaluation of facts and evidence, the Defendant must realize that the determination cannot be made on nothing. If the Defendant desires the determination to be made in his favour then he has a duty to help his own cause or case by adducing before the court such facts or evidence that will induce the determination to be made in his favour.” In Okudzeto Ablakwa (NO. 2) V. Attorney General & Anor [2012] 2 SCGLR 845 @ 867 the apex Court further postulated that:- “If a person goes to court to make an allegation, the onus is on him to lead evidence to prove that allegation, unless the allegation is admitted. If he fails to do that, the ruling on that allegation will go against him. Stated more explicitly, a party cannot win a case in court if the case is based on an allegation which he fails to prove or establish. This rule is further buttressed by section 17 (b) which, emphasizes on the party on whom lies the duty to start leading evidence…” Having briefly stated the law on the burden of proof, I now proceed with the evaluation of the issues set down for trial. ISSUE 1 Whether or not the Plaintiff supplied the 1st Defendant petroleum products worth GHS7,188,948.90 out of which the Defendants have paid an amount of GHS5,164,02.65. As part to the Defendants’ defence to this suit they allege that the Plaintiff did not do any business with Deliman Oil Company Limited in respect of the debt claimed but dealt with Deliman & Co. (a sister company of the 1st Defendant). However, per the Plaintiff’s Exhibit “F Series” some cheques were issued by Deliman Oil Company Limited to Plaintiff. The paragraph 4 and 8 of the Amended Statement of Defence states:- “4. Save that Plaintiff supplied 1st Defendant with some quantities of petroleum products, Defendants deny paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim and say in answer thereto that, the 2nd Defendant approached and discussed business for and on behalf of the 1st Pag e 6 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. Defendant to allow 1st Defendant to market and distribute petroleum products from Plaintiff to other small petroleum outlets on credit basis. 8. 2nd Defendant says in added answer to paragraph 9 and 10 of Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim that, in line with the terms of the agreement, anytime he (2nd Defendant) took delivery of petroleum products from Plaintiff, Plaintiff issued it with various way bills and invoices indicating the details of the transaction and the amount due and owing as well as the duration for payment and that the alleged indebtedness pleaded by the Plaintiff came to it as a surprise.” In Exhibit “E” (Plaintiff’s final demand notice letter dated 18th December, 2013) a demand was made for the sum of GH¢2,024,906.27 as outstanding balance of products supplied but the said letter was addressed to Deliman & Co. Ltd, not the 1st Defendant herein. The 2nd Defendant admits that the two (2) Companies of his have been doing business with the Plaintiff but the account positions of each of the companies are different thus requiring reconciliation to establish how much was owed by each entity. I will for clarity state exactly what is entailed in paragraph 4 of the Plaintiff’s said Exhibit “E”. “We are by this letter demanding full payment in the sum of Two Million, Twenty Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Six Ghana Cedes, Twenty Seven Pesewas (GHS2,024,906.27) being your indebtedness to DOMINION INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM LTD together with interest at the current GCB lending rate at the prevailing lending rate (28% per annum) from April, 2013 to December, 2013 in the sum GHS425,230.32 bringing your total indebtedness to GHS2,450,136.59.” On 22nd May 2024 the following were recording when 2nd Defendant was being cross- examined by Counsel for the Plaintiff: - Q: In your Exhibit “B1” attached to your affidavit in support of the motion, you stated that the Plaintiff supplied petroleum products in the sum of GHS7,188,948.90. Pag e 7 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. A: We are not disputing doing transactions with the Plaintiff, before we started there was an offer from the Plaintiff which is the Exhibit “B” which they did not include the issue of interest or compound interest, and there were supplies to us, but the amount quoted itself was disputed. There were invoices which were not captured by us, which means some of the products that were credited to our accounts were not received by us. So we called for reconciliation of all the supplies and of all the payments.” … Q: Now you have not produced any evidence of records of your payments for all the products the Plaintiff supplied to the 1st Defendant. A: We produced evidence in the form of cheques to the Plaintiff. Our issue was the invoices that were credited into the accounts which products were not delivered to us. Each truck is covered by an invoice.” It is the Plaintiff who took the Defendants to Court and therefore has to prove what it claims is entitled to it from the Defendants. See Re Ashalley Botwe Lands; Adjetey Agbosu & Ors vrs. Kotey & Ors. [2003-2004] SCGLR 420. Plaintiff’s Exhibit “C” is a customer account statement of 1st Defendant prepared by the Plaintiff which has not been signed. Exhibit “D Series” are also invoices of the products supplied and issued to Deliman & Co Ltd, not the 1st Defendant herein. The Plaintiff chose to sue 1st Defendant company and yet purported to establish its indebtedness with invoices in the name of Deliman & Co. Ltd. which is separate and distinct from 1st Defendant company. The Exhibit “E” series apart, I find the Plaintiff’s evidence against the 1st Defendant unsatisfactory. From the extracts of Exhibit “E” quoted above, on the Plaintiff’s own showing the outstanding balance on the transactions between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant was only GHS424,230.32 for which interest at 28% per annum was calculated from April 2013 to December, 2013. This means that interest on the GHS424,230.32 for nine months is what brought the 1st Defendant’s indebtedness to GH2,024,906.27 being Pag e 8 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. claimed by the Plaintiff in 2013 and now grown to GHS10,986,788.02. There is no evidence on the record that the parties agreed that interest be charged on any outstanding as the only document that can be said to govern the relationship between the parties is the offer letter of the Plaintiff Exhibit “B”. The fact that Defendants admit receiving the products and made some payments does not negate the fact the parties agreed to do business together and any claim of indebtedness ought to be proved in accordance with the law. There is no proof of agreed interest rate that ballooned a balance of GHS424,230.32 to GHS2,024,906.27 and no proof of invoices showing the indebtedness of the 1st Defendant. From the evidence before me and having analyzed the address and additional submission of Plaintiff filed pursuant of the orders of the Court, I am inclined to believe that the Plaintiff has sued the 1st Defendant on the basis of its transactions with Deliman & Co. Ltd. against whom the invoices were raised. Unfortunately, Deliman & Co. Ltd. is not a party in this suit. I therefore hold that it is the sum of GHS424,230.32 that is outstanding and due Plaintiff for products supplied is not due from the 1st Defendant. ISSUE 2 Whether or not by the terms of the credit sale agreement executed between Plaintiff and Defendants, the parties agreed to the compound interest rate of 27% per month on petroleum products supplied to the defendants by Plaintiff? The Plaintiff claim that the parties executed a credit sale agreement on 19th June, 2012 and relied on Exhibit “B” as the agreement between the parties that contained a term that products supplied are on 30-day credit basis. The said Exhibit “B” which the Plaintiff alleges to be a Credit Sales Agreement is an offer letter to 1st Defendant for the supply of petroleum products by the Plaintiff. It was not signed by the Defendants and did not contain any term that entitled Plaintiff to interest on outstanding amount at the interest rate of 27% per month compounded. Pag e 9 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. In the Plaintiff’s written address, it stated that it is entitled to 27% interest compounded on outstanding debt but there is no such evidence of this term of agreement in any of the documents adduced by Plaintiff at trial. The Plaintiff alleged further in its submissions that this 27% interest compounded interest charge is industry practice but this was not established and proved anywhere during the trial. As stated in the case of Zabrama vrs. Segbedzi [1991]2 GLR 221 the apex Court speaking through Kpegah JSC stated thus; "a person who makes an averment or assertion which is denied by his opponent has the burden to establish that his averment or assertion is true. And he does not discharge this burden unless he leads admissible and credible evidence from which the fact or facts he asserts, can properly and safely be inferred. The nature of each averment or assertion determines the degree and nature of that burden." In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands; Adjetey Agbosu & ors v Kotey & Ors cited above (supra), a litigant who is a Defendant does not need to prove anything. It is the Plaintiff who took the Defendant to Court who has to prove what he claims he is entitled to from the Defendant. From these authorities the discussions above I am unable to hold that the Plaintiff is entitled to 27% interest compounded as interest rate on any outstanding due it. This issue clearly cannot be resolved in favour of the Plaintiff. ISSUE 3 Whether or not per the credit sales agreement, the 1st Defendant was required to pay for petroleum products supplied it by the Plaintiff within 30-days? The parties all agree that some petroleum products were supplied by the Plaintiff to one of 2nd Defendant’s companies and the only document governing their relationship put in evidence is Exhibit “B” which was described by the Plaintiff as a “Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 19th June 2012”. This evidence is actually headed OFFER TO SUPPLY PETROLEUM PRODUCTS TO YOUR COMPANY and for clarity I will reproduce the contents of the said offer letter. Pag e 10 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. “In furtherance to out discussions, Dominion International Petroleum Limited wishes to offer your company GHS0.0070 per litre of PM and AGO Deliman Oil purchased from us in addition to 30 days credit. As you know, this offer is the best as far as business support is concerned. We humbly request that you accept this offer by way of supporting Deliman Oil. We look forward to receiving a favourable response from you and assure you of a prompt and continuous operation in an atmosphere that will be mutually beneficial to both companies. NB: Post dated cheques will be taken after day of loading Yours faithfully, Signed: For Dominion International Petroleum Limited” The Defendants in their pleadings stated that it was based on the mutual discussions and understanding of the parties that Plaintiff supplied petroleum products to Deliman & Co. as contained in paragraph 5 of their Amended Statement of Defence. See also the testimony of the 2nd Defendant on 22nd May, 2024 quoted above where Exhibit “B” was not denied and so were supplies made not denied. What the Defendants deny was the outstanding and the issue of interest at 27% compounded. So, Exhibit “B” and the testimony of the 2nd Defendant show that there was an understanding that the supplies were for a 30-day credit and this has been established from the evidence before the Court. ISSUE 4 Whether or not the Defendants are in breach of the Credit Sale Agreement? ISSUE 6 Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to recover general damages for breach of contract? Pag e 11 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. The Defendants’ case is that they had always challenged the fact that they owe the Plaintiff and had paid for the products supplied. Defendants’ averred when they noticed that the invoices did not correspond with the supplies, they had to stop Exhibit “F” Series to enable parties reconcile accounts which never happened. This is contained in the Defendants testimony of 7th June, 2024 which had the following recorded:- Q: When the Plaintiff presented these cheques to its bankers on 4th March, 2013, it was dishonoured. A: Yes, my Lady, it was dishonoured because the invoices covering these cheques were suspicious so we requested for an audit on those invoices and were turned down. The cheques were dated 22nd February, 2013 and the Plaintiff presented the cheques in March 2013 when they knew very well that we had asked them to stop the cheques for us to resolve the outstanding issues that we complained about. They knew these cheques were not going to be honoured, so these cheques were intentionally presented by the Plaintiff to enable them make a case against the Defendant. From the evidence before the Court the Defendants have been able to create some uncertainty in the mind of the Court as to whether the Defendants are in breach of any sales and credit arrangement of the parties. The Plaintiff have failed to produce evidence of any executed Credit Sale Agreement of the parties. See the Re Ashalley Botwey case cited supra; it is the Plaintiff who took the Defendants to Court and must prove its claim against them. I am therefore unable to hold that the parties agreed to be bound by a Credit Sale Agreement which entitled Plaintiff to damages against the 1st Defendant. ISSUE 5 Whether or not the 1st Defendant was set up by the 2nd Defendant to perpetuate fraud? The Plaintiff in an attempt to put forth the case of fraud against the 2nd Defendant particularized fraud in its Statement of Claim as follows:- Pag e 12 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. (i) The 1st Defendant after taking delivery of the petroleum products failed or refused to pay for same. (ii) The 2nd Defendant closed the fuel station being operated by the 1st Defendant to evade payment for the products supplied. (iii) The 1st Defendant has vanished into thin air and all attempts at locating it has proved futile. Fraud requires a higher standard of proof than in ordinary civil cases and the Plaintiff therefore has to substantiate the alleged fraud by evidence. In Re Agyepong (decd)’ Puku vrs Abosi [1982-83] GLR 254 the Court of Appeal held inter alia, that:- “… fraud must not only be pleaded but clearly and distinctly proved by the man who alleged it. Fraud in civil proceedings require a higher standard of proof than an ordinary civil matter, there must be proof of criminal deception.” The Plaintiff submitted that the 1st Defendant is the alter ego of the 2nd Defendant and per Exhibit “A”, 2nd Defendant is the sole shareholder of the 1st Defendant Company. That 2nd Defendant created separate legal entities for his benefit to circumvent contractual obligations and engaging in acts to evade payment of legitimate debts. Per Exhibit “A” 1st Defendant Company was incorporated on 19th October, 2004 but Defendants Exhibit “2” indicated that certificate to commence business of 1st Defendant was issued on 3rd December, 2015 and Deliman’s & Co. Ltd. was certified to commence business on 7th February, 2013. 2nd Defendant however in his testimony before the Court said he has been a director of the Deliman’s & Co. Ltd. company since 2013. Meanwhile as Plaintiff search showed that 1st Defendant company was incorporated in 2004, I can only infer from the registration numbers on the certificate to commence business issued on 3rd December, 2015 that the difference in dates was one resulting from re-registration by the Registrar of Companies. Plaintiff also submitted that Defendants fraudulently issued four cheques which totalled GHS72,704.88 to it but were returned unpaid. The Defendants’ defence was that they stopped those cheques when they realized that the invoices did not correspond with the Pag e 13 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. goods received. Issuing of dud cheques is a criminal offence and nothing stopped the Plaintiff from pursing against them criminally. From the evidence before the Court the Plaintiff has not been able to establish that the 1st Defendant company was used by the 2nd Defendant to perpetuate fraud against it. ISSUE 7 Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Ten Million, Nine Hundred and Eighty-Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Eighty-Eight Ghana Cedis, Two Pesewas (GH¢10,986,788.02) from the Defendants? As discussed earlier, per the Plaintiff’s own showing the outstanding due it from the 1st Defendant was GHS425,230.32 which per its calculation brought the figure to GHS2,450,136.59 as at December 2013 being interest from April 2013 to December 2013. There is however no evidence of any invoices that were issued against the 1st Defendant, neither any evidence of agreed interest rate nor penal charges for non-payment. The issue of whether Plaintiff is entitled to GHS10,986,788 from the 1st Defendant has not been proved by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants fail. CONCLUSION From the above analysis, I am unable to grant to the Plaintiff its reliefs for the recovery of GHS10,986,788.02 as the cost of petroleum products supplied the Defendants with interest for the simple reason that Plaintiff was not able to adduce sufficient evidence to assist the Court make this determination in its favour. The Plaintiff has also not been able to make up a claim against the 2nd Defendant, as he acted as a representative of the 1st Defendant in his capacity as Managing Director and there was no evidence of a personal guarantee from him. Cost of Five Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS5,000.00) is awarded in favour of the Defendants against the Plaintiff. (SGD.) SHEILA MINTA, J. Pag e 14 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT REPRESENTATIONS PARTIES: ABSENT COUNSEL: GRACE TORGBOR, ESQ., HOLDING BRIEF FOR ASSAD GBADEGBE, ESQ., FOR THE PLAINTIFF – PRESENT COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS - ABSENT AUTHORITIES: 1. EMMANUEL MAKWASINGA VRS. BWANAALLY IBRAHIM (SUIT NO 21/02/2024 DELIVERED ON 29TH FEBRUARY 2024 2. GIHOC VRS. HANNA ASSI [2005-2006] SCGLR 458 AT 485 Pag e 15 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR. 3. ODAMETEY VRS. CLOCUH [1989-90] 1 GLR, 14 4. ODONKOR VRS. AMARTEI [1992-93] GBR 59 5. TUAKWA VRS. BOSOM [2001-2002] SCGLR 61 6. OKUDZETO ABLAKWA (NO. 2) V. ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOR [2012] 2 SCGLR 845 @ 867 7. ADJETEY AGBOSU & ORS VRS. KOTEY & ORS [2003-2004] SCGLR 420 8. OKUDZETO ABLAKWA (NO. 2) V. ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOR [2012] 2 SCGLR 845 @ 867 9. RE ASHALLEY BOTWE LANDS; ADJETEY AGBOSU & ORS VRS. KOTEY & ORS. [2003-2004] SCGLR 420 10. ZABRAMA VRS. SEGBEDZI [1991]2 GLR 221 11. RE AGYEPONG (DECD)’ PUKU VRS ABOSI [1982-83] GLR 254 12. SECTION 12(1) AND (2) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT Pag e 16 | 16 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/1169/2019 - DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. & ANOR.