In-petrol Ghana Limited Vrsghana Oil Companty Limited (goil) [2021] GHASC 108 (29 April 2021)

In-petrol Ghana Limited Vrsghana Oil Companty Limited (goil) [2021] GHASC 108 (29 April 2021)

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to the claimed losses as special damages, as the alleged losses were not particularized, not proximate to the breach, and not foreseeable under the contract. The evidence showed defendant paid in full, and any losses from price or forex differentials were subject to industry arrangements with the National Petroleum Authority, not the defendant. The lower courts erred in law and fact by awarding the reliefs.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 108
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: IN-PETROL GHANA LIMITED; Defendant/appellant/appellant: GHANA OIL COMPANY LIMITED (GOIL)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
29 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; plaintiff's suit dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages, Special Damages, Promissory Estoppel, Oil and Gas Transactions
Source Language
English
Contract Law Commercial Law Breach of Contract Damages Special Damages Promissory Estoppel Oil and Gas Transactions

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IN-PETROL GHANA LIMITED

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

GHANA OIL COMPANY LIMITED (GOIL)

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was liable for losses claimed by the plaintiff arising from delayed payments under a Corporate Irrevocable Payment Undertaking (CIPU)
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff proved entitlement to special damages for price and forex differentials and loan reimbursement
  3. 3 Whether the lower courts erred in law and fact in affirming the plaintiff's claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to the claimed losses as special damages, as the alleged losses were not particularized, not proximate to the breach, and not foreseeable under the contract. The evidence showed defendant paid in full, and any losses from price or forex differentials were subject to industry arrangements with the National Petroleum Authority, not the defendant. The lower courts erred in law and fact by awarding the reliefs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; plaintiff's suit dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal set aside.
  • Plaintiff's claims for losses and loan reimbursement dismissed.