Banahene Vrs Shell Ghana Ltd [2017] GHASC 48 (6 April 2017)

Banahene Vrs Shell Ghana Ltd [2017] GHASC 48 (6 April 2017)

The absence of the driver’s signature on the delivery notes does not absolve the carrier (Benko Ltd. and by extension the plaintiff) from liability for the diverted consignments, as delivery and risk passed upon loading and issuance of delivery notes. There was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant after the FRS; the plaintiff cannot claim against the defendant. No negligence or breach of duty was established against the defendant.

Citation
[2017] GHASC 48
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Oppong Banahene; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Shell Ghana Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
6 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bailment, Carriage of Goods, Agency, Negligence, Third Party Contracts
Source Language
English
Contract Law Commercial Law Bailment Carriage of Goods Agency Negligence Third Party Contracts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oppong Banahene

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

Shell Ghana Limited

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the absence of the driver's signature on delivery notes absolves the carrier from liability for diverted consignments
  2. 2 Whether there was a contract between the plaintiff and defendant after the Fleet Rationalisation Scheme (FRS)
  3. 3 Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to ensure the plaintiff's driver signed the delivery notes

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of the driver’s signature on the delivery notes does not absolve the carrier (Benko Ltd. and by extension the plaintiff) from liability for the diverted consignments, as delivery and risk passed upon loading and issuance of delivery notes. There was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant after the FRS; the plaintiff cannot claim against the defendant. No negligence or breach of duty was established against the defendant.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed