Boy Boison Enterprise Ltd v Rigworld International Services Ltd (C2/28/2024) [2025] GHACC 65 (20 February 2025)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT ACHIMOTA, ACCRA ON THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE HER HONOUR AKOSUA ANOKYEWAA ADJEPONG (MRS.), CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SUIT NO. C2/28/2024 BOY BOISON ENTERPRISE LTD --------------- PLAINTIFF BOY BOISON SHOP, FIJAI FIJAI-ACCRA ROAD TAKORADI VRS RIGWORLD INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LTD ------------- DEFENDANT 5TH FLOOR, 335 PLACE, BLOCK 6, N1 NORTH DZORWULU ACCRA PARTIES: PLAINTIFF REPRESENTED BY BENJAMIN BESSAH BRACE DEFENDANT ABSENT COUNSEL: GODWIN SELASI DAKPO, ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE DEFENDANT Boy Boison Ent. Ltd v. Rigworld Int, Services Ltd Page 1 of 11 JUDGMENT FACTS By a Writ of Summons issued from the Registry of this Court on the 13th day of June 2024 the Plaintiff claims against the Defendant the following reliefs: i. An order for recovery of Two Hundred and Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty-Five Ghana Cedis (GHS208,525.00) being total purchase price or debt due and payable to the Plaintiff for Goods purchased by and delivered to Defendant; ii. An order for payment of interest on the sum in (i) above at the prevailing commercial bank interest rate from March 21, 2024, till date of final payment; iii. An order for general damages for breach of contract; iv. Costs including Solicitor's fees. v. Any other relief(s) this Honourable may deem fit. By an affidavit of service dated 24th June 2024 deposed to by one Benjamin Sunu, a private bailiff attached to this Court, the Writ of Summons together with Statement of Claim were served on the Defendant company through one Florence Esi Abakah, the director of human resource. However, the Defendant failed to enter appearance as provided by the rules of this Court. This Court on the 30th day of July 2024 heard a motion ex-parte for final judgment in default appearance filed by counsel for the Plaintiff herein on 26th June 2024. The Court upon hearing the application and further relying on Order 10 rules 1, 2 and 7 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), entered final judgment on reliefs (i) and (ii) Boy Boison Ent. Ltd v. Rigworld Int, Services Ltd Page 2 of 11 as endorsed on the Writ of Summons. The Court also entered interlocutory judgment on relief (iii) and for damages to be assessed later. A cost of GHS20,000 was awarded in favour of the Plaintiff as against the Defendant. The Plaintiff was ordered to give notice to the Defendant for the assessment of damages, and in the circumstances, the Plaintiff was further ordered to file its Witness Statement which it intends to rely on, in proof of the unliquidated claim of general damages for breach of contract for final judgment. The Plaintiff’s representative subsequently filed his Witness Statement and served a copy on the Defendant together with a hearing notice as well as notice of assessment of damages. A party has himself to blame for failing to attend Court. In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeal, Accra Ex Parte East Dadekotopon Development Trust, Civil Motion No J5/39/2015, dated 30- 07-15, SC Unreported, it was held that: “There could not be a breach of the rules of the audi alteram partem rule, when it is clear from the facts that sufficient opportunity was given to a party and was abused by him”. Adinyira JSC also in the case of Nana Ampofo Kyei Barfour v. Justmoh Construction Co. Ltd. & Others [2017] 113 G.M.J. 118 at pages 128-129 restated the principle in these words: “In the plethora of cases cited by counsel for the Plaintiff for example, Republic v. High Court (Fast Track Division) Accra; Ex parte State Housing Co. Ltd. (No. 2) (Koranten-Amoako Interested Party) [2009] SCGLR 185; Republic v. High Court (Human Rights Division) Accra, Ex parte Akita (Mancell-Egala & Attorney-General – Interested Parties) [2010] SCGLR 374 at page 379; where the Supreme Court held the principle of the audi alteram partem rule was inapplicable; it was clearly evident, on the face of the record that the party complaining of a breach of his/her right to be heard, was present in Court on the day the case Boy Boison Ent. Ltd v. Rigworld Int, Services Ltd Page 3 of 11 was adjourned for hearing or was served with hearing notice but chose not to be present either by himself or counsel to be heard on the due date.” Order 10 rule 3 (2) and (3) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), provide that: “(2) Where the Plaintiff enters interlocutory judgment for damages under rule 2 or for the value of goods under this rule, the Court shall fix the date on which the damages or value shall be assessed and direct that notice of it shall be given to the Defendant against whom the interlocutory judgment has been entered. (3) A Defendant who is served with such a notice is entitled to attend at the assessment and be heard on the issue of damages only” Relying on the above authorities, the Court proceeded to hear the case of the Plaintiff in relation to its claim for general damages in the absence of the Defendant upon ensuring that there was proof of service of hearing notice on the Defendant. THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF In his Witness Statement the representative of the Plaintiff, Kofi Boison who is also the Managing Director of the Plaintiff Company testified that he is the Managing Director of the Plaintiff Company. That the Plaintiff is a limited liability company registered under the laws of Ghana and deals in sale of general goods or merchandise in Takoradi. That Boy Boison Ent. Ltd v. Rigworld Int, Services Ltd Page 4 of 11 the Defendant is also a limited liability company registered under the laws of Ghana and carries on business in the oil and gas sector within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Plaintiff’s representative continued that the Defendant through its officers including Samuel Ofoe Ayitey, the Procurement Lead of Defendant, requested for various quantities of car tyres and batteries (the "Goods") to be delivered to Defendant for its fleet operations. That, the Defendant requested to pay for the Goods when it receives the Goods from the Plaintiff and issues Purchase Order for the Goods actually received. That the Plaintiff delivered the Goods, comprising car batteries and tyres of various quantities to the Defendant who received delivery of them and thereafter issued Purchase Orders No. PO002029 and PO002030 all dated March 11, 2024 (the "Purchase Orders"). The Plaintiff’s representative tendered in evidence exhibits ‘A’ and ‘A1’ being copies of the Purchase Orders No. PO002029 and PO002030 all dated March 11, 2024 respectively. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant has made payment for some of the Goods delivered to it but has since refused or failed to pay the outstanding balance till date despite invoice sent for such payments. He tendered exhibit ‘B’ and ‘B1’ being copies of the invoices sent for payment dated March 5 and February 29, 2024 respectively, in evidence. The Plaintiff’s representative further testified that by the terms of the Purchase Orders, the Defendant was to pay by March 21, 2024, ten (10) days after the said Purchase Orders were issued. However, the Defendant failed to do so, and this failure was a breach of the agreement for the sale of the Goods. He continued that as business entity, Plaintiff purchases the Goods from importers who import them from Turkey, Germany, America and India and Plaintiff relies heavily on the dollar-to-cedi exchange rate to be able to operate. That the Defendant held onto Plaintiff's Purchase Price or debt from March 2024 when the dollar-to-cedi rate, according to the Bank of Ghana Monthly Exchange rate indicators was 1 dollar to 12.8770 cedis as at March 2024. As at July 30, 2024, the date of Judgment, the dollar-to-cedi exchange rate Boy Boison Ent. Ltd v. Rigworld Int, Services Ltd Page 5 of 11 was 1 dollar to 14.900 cedis. He tendered in evidence exhibit ‘C’ which is a copy of the Bank of Ghana Monthly Exchange Rate Indicators for US Dollars as published on its website. That the rise of the exchange rates meant a significant loss of 2.023 dollars for their business from March to July 2024 (i.e., four (4) months). That the business also had customers who were making demands on the Goods. Creditors who Plaintiff also took some funds from, came to Plaintiff's shop at Takoradi to embarrass its officers and in the presence of other customers threatening to file lawsuit against the Plaintiff for failing to repay the loans advanced to Plaintiff to, among others, purchase the Goods sold Defendant. That this also affected the general goodwill of trade of the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff’s representative, to make matters worse, the Defendant kept making promises via email that it will pay up the debt but continuously ignores full payment even till date. As at May 10, 2024, he also sent emails on behalf of the Plaintiff to request for payment but it was not heeded. That the Defendant only gave assurances that its accounts department was working on the payment. Exhibit ‘D’ being copies of the Email Exchanges from April 2, 2024 to May 10, 2024 between Defendant and the Plaintiff on Payment of outstanding amount was tendered to that effect. According to the Plaintiff’s representative, he believes that there has been a breach of the agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant for payment and that has caused some financial difficulty to the Plaintiff as a business entity beyond what award of interest could compensate. That taking cognizance of the various expenses the Plaintiff made on his travel expenses from Takoradi to Accra to follow up on payments from the Defendant, the rate of dollar depreciation, and the damage to their business credibility with their customers, it will be fair for an amount of Fifty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS 50,000.00) to be awarded to compensate the Plaintiff for the breach of contract by the Defendant. He therefore prayed the Court to grant the Plaintiff damages for breach of contract. Boy Boison Ent. Ltd v. Rigworld Int, Services Ltd Page 6 of 11 The case of the Plaintiff was closed thereafter. LEGAL ISSUE The legal issue to be determined by this Court is whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to an order for general damages for breach of contract. BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF Section 12(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), provides that: “except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderance of probabilities.” Section 11(4) of the Evidence Act explains the burden of proof in civil cases as follows: “In other circumstances, the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence, a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence”. In In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands; Adjetey Agbosu & Ors v. Kotey & Ors [2003-04] SCGLR 420, the Supreme Court per Brobbey JSC reiterated the position of the law that: “… it is the duty of the Plaintiff who took the Defendant to Court to prove what he claimed he is entitled to, from the Defendant.” Boy Boison Ent. Ltd v. Rigworld Int, Services Ltd Page 7 of 11 Notwithstanding the failure of the Defendant to appear in Court for hearing, I have subjected the testimony of the Plaintiff’s representative and the Statement of Claim to the prescribed standard of proof as provided under sections 10 – 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). ANALYSIS The law is that, when there is a breach of contract, the injured party should be placed in the position he would have been in had the contract not been breached or had it been performed. In Juxon-Smith v. KLM Dutch Airlines [2005-2006] SCGLR 438, the Supreme Court held that where a party has sustained a loss by reason of a breach of contract, he was, so far as money could do it, to be placed in the same situation with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed. The Plaintiff has claimed for general damages and general damages are those which the law presumes as flowing naturally from the breach. A breach of contract occurs due to the action or inactions of the other party. Damages are the normal remedy for a contracting party who suffers as a result of a breach of contract by the other party. General damages need not be proved with evidence since it stems naturally from the breach. In the case of Eastern Alloys Company Ltd v. Chicano Gold Mines (J4/48/2016) [2017] GHASC 5, the Court found that damages is a method by which Courts offer monetary reparation to persons whose rights in contract law has been violated, as a means to restore them to the situation in which they would have been but for the violation. The Court found that in order to succeed with a claim for damages the Plaintiff must satisfy the Court with credible proof that there has been a breach, giving rise to the cause of action. Boy Boison Ent. Ltd v. Rigworld Int, Services Ltd Page 8 of 11 Also, in the case of Delmas Agency Ghana Limited v. Food Distributors International Limited [2007-2008] SCGLR 748, the Supreme Court held that an award of general damages is such as the law would presume to be the natural or probable consequence of the Defendant’s act. It arises by inference of the law and therefore need not be proved by evidence. The law implies general damages in every infringement of an absolute right. The Plaintiff’s representative tendered exhibits ‘A’ and ‘A1’ being two different Purchase Orders and both dated 11th March 2024. From exhibit ‘A’, the vendor is the Plaintiff and the said goods were for the Defendant’s fleet operation. It can also be gathered that the due date for the payment of the said purchase was 21st March 2024. Exhibits ‘B’ and ‘B1’ are also proforma invoice/waybill issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant covering the purchase orders in exhibits ‘A’ and ‘A1’. From these pieces of evidence on record, it is not in doubt that there was a sale contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Subsequent to that, it can be gleaned from exhibit ‘D’ that the Defendant did not comply with the payment as he defaulted and that resulted in the Plaintiff’s demand for the settled payment for the transaction between the parties. The demand for payment email sent to the Defendant from the Plaintiff indicates how the Plaintiff was frustrated as a result of the breach of contract by the Defendant, nonetheless the evidence on record suggests that the Defendant did not make payment as per the transaction he had with the Plaintiff. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, since it has been established from the evidence on record that there was a binding contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the Plaintiff has been able to prove that he indeed had a contract with the Defendant and same was breached as a result of the Defendant’s failure to make full payment of the purchase he made from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff will be entitled to general damages for breach of contract. Boy Boison Ent. Ltd v. Rigworld Int, Services Ltd Page 9 of 11 CONCLUSION After a careful examination and evaluation of the evidence presented; and further relying on the authorities above, I find that the testimony of the Plaintiff’s representative substantiates the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant breached the contract between the parties and thus the Plaintiff’s representative has succeeded in adducing sufficient evidence in proving the claim of the Plaintiff for an order for general damages. Accordingly, I do hereby find that the Plaintiff is entitled to general damages against the Defendant for breach of contract. Consequently, I hereby enter final judgment on relief (iii) as endorsed on the Plaintiff’s Writ of Summons as follows: • General damages of GHS50,000.00 is awarded against the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for breach of contract. Considering that the Court has earlier awarded cost against the Defendant for the Plaintiff when it gave final judgment on reliefs (i) and (ii); and interlocutory judgment on relief (iii) on 30th July 2024, the Court shall not award further cost. [SGD.] H/H AKOSUA A. ADJEPONG (MRS) (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) Boy Boison Ent. Ltd v. Rigworld Int, Services Ltd Page 10 of 11 Boy Boison Ent. Ltd v. Rigworld Int, Services Ltd Page 11 of 11