|
_
JUDGMENT
BROBBEY, JA:
This is an appeal from
the decision of Benin, JA. Sitting as an additional
Justice of the High Court in which he gave judgment in
favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent.
The case arose out of
business transaction between the Defendant/Appellant and
the Respondent. Simply stated, the business took the
form of orders for some goods being made by the
Respondent from overseas; when they arrived in Ghana,
the Appellant was to inform the Respondent of the
arrival. The Respondent would then issue an invoice to
cover the goods that have arrived and indeed if there
were to be short falls the Respondent would make good
the difference.
According to the
Respondent, goods were ordered on invoice Number 101 and
152 on Appellant’s LPO Numbers 11139 dated 29th June
1994 and 20826 dated 12th January 1995 at the total
value of $281,828.25. The goods were delivered. The
Appellants paid $65,675.41 leaving a balance of
$216,153.14. It was that amount that the Respondent
sued for.
The case of the
Appellants is that the second Appellant developed
friendship, love and trust with the managing director of
the Respondent Company. That relationship resulted in
the managing director visiting the offices of the
Appellants and collecting not only rubber stamp but also
documents some of which related to previous transactions
and replacing them with fake ones. It was through the
use of those fake documents that the Respondents laid
claim to goods allegedly supplied to the appellants but
which in fact had not been supplied.
The Appellants accused
the Managing Director of breach of trust by the
unauthorized use of the rubber stamp and documents.
They further accused him of fraud, the particulars of
which they gave as follows:—
i. Obtaining blank
copies of the Appellant’s letter-heads,
ii. Using the
letter-heads to clear goods from Togo,
iii. Using the
letter-heads to write letters purporting them to have
been written by the second Appellant.
iv. Using the
documents to claim from the Appellants goods which the
appellants had never applied for.
It was part of the case
of the appellants that they never received the goods
that formed the subject matter of the Respondent’s
claims but that all the goods supplied to them were paid
for.
The trial Judge
dismissed the Appellant’s contention and entered
judgment in favour of the Respondent. It was against
the judgment that the Appellants appealed to this Court.
The Appellants filed
only these two grounds of appeal, namely:
1. That the judgment
was against the weight of evidence and
2. The Judge erred in
deciding that no payment had been made in respect of the
first batch of goods and also in deciding that the
second of batch of goods arrived in Ghana.
No additional grounds
of appeal were filed.
The well-established
rule is that where the Appellant contends that the
judgment is against the weight of evidence, he assumes
the burden of showing from the evidence that that was
so. There are several authorities on this principle,
one of which is BOATENG V. BOATENG [1987-88] 2 GLR 81.
At the trial Court, the
entire case was decided on facts. It was therefore not
surprising that in this appeal too, the Appellants have
confined their appeal to only factual matters.
All the issues of fact
raised at the trial were exhaustively considered and
disposed of by the trial judge. It must also be stated
emphatically that every single finding of fact that he
made was convincingly supported by the evidence on the
record.
Before, us none of the
said findings has been shown to be unreasonable and or
perverse.
This is an appellate
court and we are not placed in the same position as the
trial court which heard the evidence and observed the
demeanors of the witnesses and parties out of which it
decided on their credibility. We as the appellant court
have no basis to interfere with the findings of facts or
substitute our own views on the facts for those of the
trial court. The appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
The Respondents claimed
interest up to the date of payment. That is not
supported out by law. The correct legal position under
LN. 140A is that interest is payable on the amount
claimed up to today, the date of judgment. After today,
interest on the judgment debt will be regulated by order
LN. 140A.
S. A. BROBBEY
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
GBADEGBE, JA.:
I agree.
N. S. GBADEGBE
JUSTICE OF APPEAL.
AMONOO-MONNEY, JA:
I also agree.
J. C. AMONOO-MONNEY
JUSTICE OF APPEAL.
COUNSEL
*vdm* |
