LOGS COURT COMPANY VRS. HABITAT COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS (GJ12/05/2022) [2023] GHAHC 604 (10 November 2023)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT ‘6’ – GENERAL JURISDICTION – HELD IN KUMASI IN THE ASHANTI REGION BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATRICIA QUANSAH (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) ON FRIDAY THE 10TH OF NOVEMBER 2023. SUIT NO.: GJ12/05/2022 LOGS COURT COMPANY H/NO. PLOT 12 BLOCK L PLAINTIFF KAASE, KUMASI. VRS 1. HABITAT COMPANY LIMITED KAASE, KUMASI 2. AFOTEK GLOBAL CO LTD. DEFENDANTS TEMA 3. TWELLIUM CO. LTD. KUMASI. ________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFF REPRESENTED BY ALHASSAN AHMED 1ST DEFENDANT ABSENT JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 1 2ND DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY EDMUND OWUSU 3RD DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY STEPHEN SULEMAN DWIMOH ________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT I. FACTS OF THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE [1] The case of the Plaintiff company is pretty straight forward. Per the Plaintiff’s Managing Director, Ahmed Alhassan, in or around 2019, he approached the CEO/MD of the 1st Defendant company and requested for space in the 1st Defendant’s premises to store his giant new wooden boiler which had been imported from abroad in view of its size. The MD of the 1st Defendant company permitted the Plaintiff’s Managing Director to store the wooden boiler on the 1st Defendant’s premises upon that request; and subsequently, the Plaintiff was again permitted to deposit a ten- ton forklift of his on the 1st Defendant’s premises in 2020. [2] In 2021 however, the Plaintiff stated that the Director of the 1st Defendant company informed the Plaintiff to remove its items from the 1st Defendant’s premises because the 1st Defendant intended to sell off the property. The JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 2 Plaintiff’s Managing Director thus quickly removed the forklift; leaving behind the wood boiler because the wood boiler required technology and expertise in handling and removing it. [3] When the Plaintiff was ready to remove the wood boiler however, it contended that it found that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants had dismantled the new wood boiler and damaged same beyond mechanical relevance with an explanation that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants officers needed the premises where the boiler was situated to deposit their equipment, because they had purchased the 1st Defendant’s properties including the premises where the boiler was kept. According to the Plaintiff, even though the Defendants were aware that the boiler belonged to the Plaintiff and could have contacted the Plaintiff to remove same if the space was urgently needed; the Defendants failed to do so. The Defendants instead caused damage to the boiler which the Plaintiff had purchased and imported into Ghana at the price of €200,000.00. [4] The Plaintiff concluded that the destruction of the Plaintiff’s wood boiler without the knowledge, consent and authority of the Plaintiff was unlawful and wrongful as the equipment was justifiably there with the mandate and/or authority of the 1st Defendant. A complaint was thus lodged at the police station and upon invitation, officers of the 2nd Defendant were said to have admitted destroying the wood boiler. The Plaintiff was thus compelled to institute the present action praying the Court for the following reliefs, jointly and severally against the Defendants: JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 3 [5] RELIEFS SOUGHT BY THE PLAINTIFF 1. A declaration that the destruction and or damage of the Plaintiff’s wood boiler by the Defendants lawfully parked at the 1st Defendant’s premises was highly unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional and wrongful in law as the Defendants had no such rights, powers or justification so to do. 2. A declaration that the destruction of the Plaintiff’s wood boiler by the Defendants has caused such substantial, industrial or commercial loses or injuries to the Plaintiff. 3. The recovery of the current commercial value of the Plaintiff’s wood boiler which the Defendants unlawfully, illegally and wrongfully damaged or destroyed and without any justification or legitimatization whatsoever. 4. General damages for the unlawful and wrongful destruction/ damage. II. DEFENCE PUT FORTH BY THE 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS [6] The 1st Defendant neither entered appearance nor filed a defence for itself; but the 2nd and 3rd Defendants did; and in their defence, both the 2nd and 3rd Defendants contended that at all material times before the instant action was instituted against them, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants did not know and never interacted with the Plaintiff company nor its Managing Director, Alhassan Ahmed. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 4 [7] Officers of the 2nd Defendant were however invited to the Police Station upon a complaint lodged by the Plaintiff herein in respect of some machine, and that was how the 2nd and the 3rd Defendants got to know of the alleged destruction of some wood boiler said to have belonged to the Plaintiff. Moreover, the 3rd Defendant lawfully purchased the 1st Defendant’s factory premises; and the 3rd Defendant was given a period of three months, after which the 3rd Defendant was allowed to remove all fixtures and items on the premises: including decommissioned machinery, metal scraps, furniture and all other movable items, without further notice to the 1st Defendant; and as agreed upon between the 1st Defendant vendor and the 3rd Defendant purchaser. [8] The 2nd and 3rd Defendants continued to aver that in addition to the above clause which was expressly stipulated in the sales contract between the 1st Defendant and the 3rd Defendant, the 3rd Defendant gave a grace period of some five months to the 1st Defendant, before the 3rd Defendant entered the premises purchased from the 1st Defendant to clear same for construction. Further, the 3rd Defendant gave the 1st Defendant’s caretaker two extra months to remove all properties meant to be removed and according to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, the 1st Defendant did remove all items but left behind some scrap. It was therefore the 3rd Defendant who contracted the 2nd Defendant to go onto the site to prepare same for construction; and having regard to the terms of the contract, the 3rd Defendant stated it authorized the 2nd Defendant to engage scrap dealers to dismantle all items found on the premises to be disposed of. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants were therefore not parties to any agreement between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant with respect to any wood boiler found on the JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 5 premises; and neither did they have any knowledge of its ownership, contrary to the Plaintiff’s contentions. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants have also never admitted destroying the wood boiler of the Plaintiff and therefore concluded that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs that it sought. III. APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS STAGE [9] Pleadings came to a close and the following issues were set down for the trial: 1. Whether or not the Plaintiff’s wood boiler was damaged or destroyed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants beyond commercial value. 2. Whether or not the destruction of the Plaintiff’s wood boiler by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants was unlawful and wrongful. 3. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to the full commercial value of the wood boiler. 4. Whether or not the Plaintiff was permitted by the 1st Defendant to deposit the wood boiler at the 1st Defendant’s commercial premises which premises was subsequently transferred to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. 5. Whether or not the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have any reasonable justification for destroying the Plaintiff’s wood boiler. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 6 6. And any reasonable or probable issue(s) arising from the pleadings. All parties were ordered to file their respective witness statements and they did. IV. WITNESS STATEMENT OF THE PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE [10] The Plaintiff testified per its Managing Director as PW1; and PW1 repeated the averments in the Plaintiff’s pleadings, asserting that it was the CEO or the MD of the 1st Defendant company who authorized PW1 to deposit the said wood boiler on the 1st Defendant’s premises. PW1 further stated that even though he was personally informed to remove all his properties from the premises in question, he only removed his forklift and left behind the said wood boiler, with the hope of removing that later with the requisite expertise; but the wood boiler, which the Plaintiff had purchased for €200,000.00 was completely, recklessly and negligently destroyed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants before he could remove same. PW1 further reiterated that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants also knew for a fact that the wood boiler was owned by the Plaintiff and ought to have contacted PW1 to remove same; but they failed to do so. PW1 therefore, during the trial, tendered in evidence Exhibit A, said to be the receipt of purchase/invoice of the said wood boiler as well as pictures of the JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 7 new boiler said to have been purchased by PW1 and the purported remnants of the damaged boiler, as Exhibits B and C series. PW1 concluded by stating that the current value of the wood boiler is about €300,000.00; and thus prayed for the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons. [11] The Plaintiff’s Counsel then caused a subpoena to be issued to the Police Officer who said to have investigated the issues after a report was lodged by PW1 that his wood boiler had been unlawfully destroyed; to appear before the Court. The Police Officer, Detective Corporal Moro Iddrisu was produced as PW2, and he confirmed that a complaint of causing damage was lodged at the Police station by PW1 after the fact. He thus visited the scene and took pictures of the wood boiler said to have been damaged. PW2 therefore tendered in evidence pictures of what the boiler originally looked like, which PW2 stated was given to him by PW1; and further tendered in evidence pictures said to be of the damaged wood boiler marked respectively as Exhibits B, B1 and C, C1. PW2 further tendered in evidence the caution statements he had taken from the representatives of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants as Exhibits D and D1, and concluded as follows in his examination-in-chief: Q: The Plaintiff made a case of causing damage against the suspect what were your findings and the conclusion? A: Police was not able to get the perpetrators who cut up the boiler tank. But then, upon Police intelligence, we realized that they cut or destroyed the boiler tank and they were sold as scrap. The JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 8 people at the site were not able to assist police get the perpetrators, but we deduced the above from Police intelligence. The Plaintiff then closed its case and called no other witness(es). V. WITNESS STATEMENT OF THE 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS AND THEIR WITNESS [12] As earlier stated, the 1st Defendant did not file any process on its behalf and therefore did not participate in the trial. [13 The 2nd Defendant, on the other hand, testified per its Technical Director as DW1; and in the witness statement of DW1, he stated that the 2nd Defendant was contracted by the 3rd Defendant to construct the 3rd Defendant’s new factory in Kumasi; and before construction began, the 2nd Defendant was mandated to remove all items from the construction zone, left behind by the previous owner of the premises, the 1st Defendant. Per DW1, the items were removed and deposited on another part of the site where demolition will not take place; and the construction began. Several months after construction began and after numerous calls to the caretaker of the 1st Defendant to come and remove everything on the premises and failing to do so, DW1 added that the 2nd Defendant was again authorized by the 3rd Defendant to dispose of all items on the premises to enable work progress; and the 2nd Defendant did. According to DW1, the items that were to be disposed of included wood boilers, crane beams and a pillar machine which were considered as scrap. A scrap dealer was thus called to the site but that was when PW1 and one other came to claim the wood boiler and the other items. A JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 9 call to the caretaker of the 1st Defendant was said to have confirmed that PW1 was the owner of the wood boiler and same was released to him. PW1 however claimed that the wood boiler had been destroyed and thus lodged a report at the police station, and DW1 and others were invited to the Police station to give their statements. DW1 added that until the day of the disposal of the scrap and complaint made at the Police Station by PW1, the 2nd Defendant knew nothing about the Plaintiff or the said wood boiler; and so among others, the Plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs sought. [14] The caretaker of the 1st Defendant, Mohamad Barakat, was produced by the Defendants as DW2; and even though he confirmed that he granted PW1 the opportunity to place some items, including the wood boiler in contention on the premises in question, DW2 added that the arrangement was personally between PW1 and himself. DW2 reiterated that neither the 1st Defendant company nor the owner of the 1st Defendant company knew anything about the arrangement between PW1 and himself; and that DW2 only allowed PW1 to keep his items on the 1st Defendant’s premises on humanitarian grounds until the said premises was sold by the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant herein. [15] Subsequently, DW2 added that the 3rd Defendant granted the 1st Defendant three months to give vacant possession of the premises to the 3rd Defendant. As a result, DW2 stated that he started removing all fixtures including decommissioned machinery, metal scraps and all movable items from the premises; and further informed PW1 to come for his items from the premises. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 10 PW1 however did not come for his items even long after the three months had lapsed, until sometime in May 2021, about five months after PW1 had been informed to come for his items, when DW2 stated that he personally went to the offices of the Plaintiff to inform PW1 that the premises had been sold and the new owners were coming to take over; and so PW1 must come for his items. That was when PW1 came for the forklift; because both PW1’s forklift and the wood boiler had been taken out of the shed in which they were onto the compound. DW3 added that he travelled out of Ghana to Lebanon; but did not inform the new purchasers, the 3rd Defendant, that any other person(s) had items on the premises in question. [16] DW2 added that he was also not able to inform the 3rd Defendant about the ownership of the wood boiler left on the premises by PW1 before he left for Lebanon. Whilst in Lebanon, DW2 stated that he received information that PW1 had made a complaint to the police about his wood boiler and he was made to give a statement to the police. A copy of DW2’s statement to the police was tendered in evidence as ‘Exhibit 1’. The whole of DW2’s testimony in his witness statement thus appeared to centre on the fact that both the 2nd and 3rd Defendants had no idea about the said wood boiler placed by PW1 on the premises; and that DW2 personally called PW1 to come for his items from the premises that the 1st Defendant company had sold to the 3rd Defendant but PW1 never did. [17] Then the 3rd Defendant also testified per its Senior Sales Supervisor as DW3 and he also confirmed that the 3rd Defendant purchased the premises in question JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 11 from the 1st Defendant and contracted the 2nd Defendant to develop same. It was thus the 3rd Defendant who authorized the 2nd Defendant to dispose of all items on the premises for construction to commence after the requisite grace period granted to the 1st Defendant to remove all items from there had expired. Furthermore, the 3rd Defendant made several calls to the 1st Defendant’s caretaker, Mohamad Barakat, to come for the leftover items, but Mohamad Barakat left the country without coming for the items; and the items on the premises had to be disposed of. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants were thus not privy to any agreement made between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, DW3 continued; and neither were they aware that the item known as the wood boiler belonged to anyone and so the 2nd and 3rd Defendants cannot be held liable for the purported destruction of any item, DW3 concluded. The trial then came to a close after DW3 had been extensively cross-examined by the Plaintiff’s Counsel. VI. BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES [18] Having regard to the issues to be determined by the Court and this being a civil case, I rely on the case of LINDA SAGOE & 4 ORS v SSNIT (CIVIL APPEAL NO: J4/50/2011 - 30TH MAY 2012, where Gbadegbe JSC (as he then was) held that in every civil matter, “The onus of proof on a party is less than that on the prosecution in a criminal case, it being on a balance of probabilities only.” JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 12 The Plaintiff herein therefore assumes the burden of leading credible evidence on the facts on which he seeks to rely, and also to persuade the Court of their existence to enable this Court make a determination in the Plaintiff’s favour, that he is entitled to the reliefs he seeks. [19] The learned authors of Halsbury’s Laws of England, Volume 17 at paragraph 14 of page 11 on the “Incidence of the legal burden”, stated as follows: “The legal burden of proof normally rests upon the party desiring the Court to take action, thus a claimant must satisfy the tribunal that the conditions which entitle him to an award have been satisfied. In respect of a particular allegation, the burden lies upon the party for whom the substantiation of that particular allegation is an essential of his case.” Section 11(4) of the Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD 323 further 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.” But in the case of Bank of West Africa Ltd. v Ackun [1963] 1 GLR 176 – 182, S. C., Sarkodee – Addo JSC stated: … But the burden frequently shifts, as the case proceeds, from the person on whom it rested at first to his opponent. This occurs whenever a prima JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 13 facie case has been established on any issue of fact or whenever a rebuttable presumption of law has arisen. . . The issue must be proved by the party who alleges the affirmative in substance, and not merely the affirmative in form." VI. EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE TRIAL [20] From the entire trial, there is no doubt whatsoever in the mind of this Court that PW1 did indeed deposit both his forklift and a wood boiler on the 1st Defendant’s premises. DW2 confirmed the above in Court and stated that he personally granted PW1 the permission to place both items on the 1st Defendant’s premises. The forklift is not in contention because it was successfully taken off the premises, as confirmed by PW1 himself. It is therefore the wood boiler that is in issue; and PW1 states that the said wood boiler was unlawfully destroyed by the officers of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants when they knew that it belonged to the Plaintiff without giving the Plaintiff the opportunity to come and take the wood boiler off the premises. Under cross-examination, PW1 gave the answers below in confirmation of the above: JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 14 Q: You testified that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants knew about the ownership of the wood boiler, that they knew it was for you. A: Yes, my Lord. Q: You neither met the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, you never engaged them after the sale of the property until at the Police Station. A: Yes, my Lord. Q: Based on your testimony it will be dishonest on your part to claim the 2nd and 3rd Defendants knew the wood boiler was yours and therefore had to contact you. A: They knew it was mine because Mohammed told me he had told them that the wood boiler belonged to me. Also, even after they had sold the wood boiler and it was being cut – up, the security man at the place told them it was for me but they ignored him. At the Police station, the Defendants made an agreement with the 1st Defendant that after 3 months if the 1st Defendant doesn’t remove all the items on the plot, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants would dispose of them. Q: I am putting it to you that Mohammed Barrakat never disclosed to the 3rd Defendant, being the new owner about the ownership of the wood boiler. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 15 A: At the time Mohammed was going to his hometown, he came to tell me he had already informed the 3rd Defendant that the wood boiler belonged to me. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants had even put their very huge cranes on the plot; so Mohammed told me that if I get the crane or machine to carry my wood boiler, then I will go for it. I had not yet found a crane to carry my wood boiler that was why it was still there, my Lord. [21] The 2nd and 3rd Defendants however deny the above assertions, contending that they were neither informed nor knew that the Plaintiff was the owner of any item on the premises that the 3rd Defendant had purchased from the 1st Defendant. PW1 again stated that it was DW2 who gave him permission to place the wood boiler on the premises, and DW2 himself confirmed same under cross- examination thus: Q: It is not in controversy that you permitted Alhassan Ahmed to deposit his wood boiler machine at Habitat Company Ltd premises. A: Yes, my Lord. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 16 The above is therefore not in doubt, as stated earlier, that it was DW2, Mohammed Barrakat, who gave PW1 the permission to place his items on the demised premises. [22] PW1 however described DW2, Mohammed Barrakat as the Managing Director of the 1st Defendant, and PW1 gave the answers below under cross- examination: Q: Can you tell the Court the Managing Director you stated at paragraph 4 of your witness statement and who gave you express permission to leave your boiler on the 1st Defendant’s premises? A: Yes, my Lord. Mohammed Barrakat. Q: So, Mohammed Barrakat is the one you refer to as the Managing Director. A: Yes, my Lord, because that is how everyone calls him at the Defendants’ premises. Q: Can you also mention the name of the Director who informed you that the 1st Defendant wanted you to remove the wood boiler? A: It was the same Mohammed Barrakat who came to tell me, my Lord. PW1 further gave the following answers: JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 17 Q: So essentially, you have referred to Mohammed Barrakat in 3 different capacities? A: It is Mohammed Barrakat that I have referred to as the Managing Director because everyone refers to him as such, my Lord. Q: I am putting it to you that the said Mohammed Barrakat, whose name you mentioned is not and has never been the Managing Director for the 1st Defendant. A: What I know is that he takes care of the place and produces the plywood since time immemorial. He is in charge of everything in the company so I can refer to him as the Managing Director of the 1st Defendant, my Lord. Q: I am putting it to you that Mohammed Barrakat was the caretaker. A: He can be a caretaker and a Managing Director, since he is managing the company all on his own, he can be referred to as the Managing Director, my Lord. [23] PW1 further admitted that he did not engage and/or interact with any other person in the 1st Defendant company, save DW2 when he gave the following answers whilst being cross-examined: Q: Do you know the previous owner of the property where you kept your items? JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 18 A: No, my Lord. Q: You never had any interaction or engagement with the previous owner at the time? A: No, my Lord. Q: I am putting it to you that you never had any express permission from the owner of the premises where you kept the items. A: It is true, I do not know the owner; but the person who takes care of the place, I knew he was the owner and he gave me permission to keep the items there, my Lord. [24] I therefore find as a matter of fact that DW2 is not the owner of the 1st Defendant company; and DW2 himself informed the Court that he was neither the owner nor a Director of the 1st Defendant when he stated under cross-examination: Q: Do you know Habitat Company Ltd. A: I do, my Lord. Q: The vendor in the agreement, Nadim Rashid was the Managing Director of Habitat Company Ltd. Is that correct? A: Yes, my Lord. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 19 From the above therefore, I find that DW2 was an employee of the 1st Defendant and at paragraph 1 of DW2’s witness statement, DW2 himself testified as follows: 1. My name is Mohamad Barakat and I was the caretaker of the demised property/premises which belonged to the Nadim Bitar, the former Managing Director of the 1st Defendant. (Emphasis is mine) DW2 thus described himself as the caretaker of the premises on which the wood boiler was stored and I again find that the Plaintiff was unable to adduce any evidence to establish that DW3 was the Managing Director, CEO or even a Director of the 1st Defendant as PW1 sought to aver. [25] I also find that the Plaintiff’s Counsel sought to state that DW2 had described himself as the General Manager of the 1st Defendant Company, but DW2 himself appeared in open Court and denied same. The Plaintiff however was unable to adduce any evidence to refute the denials of DW2. Moreover, DW2 did not appear to have participated in the sales agreement of the 1st Defendant’s premises to the 3rd, even though he signed as a witness for the 1st Defendant. It thus becomes more probable than not, that DW2 was the caretaker of the premises, as he sought to state, and not the Managing Director or a Director of the 1st Defendant company, as PW1 sought to aver. From the above therefore, it is obvious that it is not the 1st Defendant that allowed PW1 to place his wood boiler on the premises but rather DW2; an employee of the 1st Defendant or the caretaker of the 1st Defendant, as DW2 described himself; and so in that regard, I will proceed to deal with the legal issues set down for the trial. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 20 [26] I will first deal with issue 4 as follows: VII. ISSUE FOUR - Whether or not the Plaintiff was permitted by the 1st Defendant to deposit the wood boiler at the 1st Defendant’s commercial premises which premises was subsequently transferred to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. There is no need wasting much time on this issue because DW2 was produced by the Defendants, and he informed the Court that he personally granted PW1 the opportunity to place his wood boiler and forklift on the premises of the 1st Defendant, and never the 1st Defendant. [27] There also does not appear to be any formal agreement between PW1 and DW2 to that effect, because I find that DW2 stated that he allowed PW1 to place his properties on the premises solely on humanitarian grounds. The informal agreement between PW1 and DW2 therefore appears not to have anything to do with the 1st Defendant herein, because the Plaintiff was unable to adequately and sufficiently establish that DW2 was the owner or Managing Director or a Director of the 1st Defendant company. In fact, DW2 himself admitted he was not the Managing Director of the 1st Defendant company. Therefore, once DW2 himself had denied he was the owner or Managing Director of the 1st Defendant, the onus remained on the Plaintiff to establish that it was the 1st Defendant company that granted the Plaintiff the permission or leave to place the said wood boiler on the premises, but the Plaintiff, JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 21 unfortunately failed to establish any connection between himself and the 1st Defendant. [28] As earlier stated, PW1 was unable to establish that DW2, the person who was said to have given him permission was indeed the Managing Director or even a Director of the 1st Defendant company; and PW1 further admitted that he did not know the owner(s) of the 1st Defendant company when he stated under cross-examination thus: Q: Do you know the previous owner of the property where you kept your items? A: No, my Lord. Q: You never had any interaction or engagement with the previous owner at the time? A: No, my Lord. Q: I am putting it to you that you never had any express permission from the owner of the premises where you kept the items. A: It is true, I do not know the owner; but the person who takes care of the place, I knew he was the owner and he gave me permission to keep the items there, my Lord. (Emphasis is mine) [29] Having the belief that Mohammed Barrakat was the owner of the premises does not constitute proof that Mohammed Barrakat, DW2 is. I thus find that JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 22 the Plaintiff was not able to satisfactorily establish that the 1st Defendant ever granted him permission to place his items on the 1st Defendant’s premises. Indeed, PW1 himself further confirmed same under cross-examination when he stated: Q: I am also putting it to you that the arrangement you made with Mohammed Barrakat had nothing to do with the owner of the property, Nadim Rachid. A: That is correct, my Lord. [30] It is trite that a company is a legal person separate from the owners and/or Directors; and a company has its own rights and liabilities, it can own property(ies) and can sue and be sued. In Morkor v. Kuma [1998-99] SCGLR 620, at page 632, Sophia Akuffo C. J (then JSC) held as follows: ‘’Save as otherwise restricted by its regulations, a company, after its registration, has all the powers of a natural person of full capacity to pursue its authorised business. In this capacity, a company is a corporate being, which, within the bounds of the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179) and the regulations of the company, may do everything that a natural person might do. In its own name, it can sue and be sued and it can owe and be owed legal liabilities. A company is, thus, a legal entity with a capacity separate, independent and distinct from the persons constituting it or employed by it.’’ JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 23 [31] Further, it is the law that liability only attaches a Director(s) or owners of a company if specific personal actions or inactions are established against same; as was further held in the Morkor v Kuma case (supra) thus: “The proper defendant in an action on a contract is the person (or persons) who made the promise the breach of which has created the cause of action. Since the first appellant had been sued jointly with the first defendant, she would be a proper party to the suit only if a specific personal liability were established against her, or the veil of incorporation could be lifted to make her acts synonymous with those of the company, or vice versa.” (Emphasis is mine) In the instant case, there is no evidence whatsoever to establish that the 1st Defendant ever permitted the Plaintiff or PW1 to place its items on the premises in question. There is also no evidence adduced by the Plaintiff to establish that the 1st Defendant or any of its Directors ever got to know that the Plaintiff had some items stored on its premises before the premises was sold to the 3rd Defendant. [32] I thus find that there is no evidence adduced by the Plaintiff to satisfy this Court that it was the 1st Defendant that allowed the Plaintiff to deposit its wood boiler on the 1st Defendant’s commercial premises. This Court therefore hereby holds that it cannot come to the conclusion that the 1st Defendant is the one that granted the Plaintiff and PW1 the authority and permission to place that wood boiler on the 1st Defendant’s premises. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 24 I will proceed to deal with the next legal issue as follows: VIII. ISSUE ONE proper defendant in an action on a contract is the person (or persons) who made the promise the breach of which has created the cause of action. Since the first appellant had been sued jointly' with the first defendant, she would be a proper party to the suit only if a specific personal liability were established against her, or the veil of incorporation could be lifted to make her acts synonymous with those of the company, or vice versa. proper defendant in an action on a contract is the person (or persons) who made the promise the breach of which has created the cause of action. Since the first appellant had been sued jointly' with the first defendant, she would be a proper party to the suit only if a specific personal liability were established against her, or the veil of incorporation could be lifted to make her acts synonymous with those of the company, or vice versa. proper defendant in an action on a contract is the person (or persons) who made the promise the breach of which has created the cause of action. Since the first appellant had JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 25 been sued jointly' with the first defendant, she would be a proper party to the suit only if a specific personal liability were established against her, or the veil of incorporation could be lifted to make her acts synonymous with those of the company, or vice versa. proper defendant in an action on a contract is the person (or persons) who made the promise the breach of which has created the cause of action. Since the first appellant had been sued jointly' with the first defendant, she would be a proper party to the suit only if a specific personal liability were established against her, or the veil of incorporation could be lifted to make her acts synonymous with those of the company, or vice ve2. ISSUE ON - Whether or not the Plaintiff’s wood boiler was damaged or destroyed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants beyond commercial value. [33] At paragraph 10 of its pleadings, the Plaintiff averred that it purchased the wood boiler in contention at the sum of €200,000.00; and PW1 tendered in evidence a proforma invoice, Exhibit A, said to evidence the purchase and the price. Under cross-examination however, Counsel for 2nd and 3rd Defendants sought to state that Exhibit A was not referable to the Plaintiff company when he posed the following questions to PW1 under cross-examination: Q: Tell the Court who this invoice was issued to; the name of the purchaser. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 26 A: The name is not on Exhibit A, but it is Logs Court Company Limited, my Lord. Q: So the document Exhibit A, as it is, does not bear the name of Logs Court Company Limited? A: Yes, my Lord. When they brought Exhibit A, other documents were attached but I gave them all to the Agent, my Lord. Q: Did you import this wood boiler from abroad? A: Yes, my Lord. Q: Do you have the import documents, the customs documents etc. on the wood boiler? A: I gave all of them to the Agent, but the Agent is unable to provide me with the documents. … I however purchased other items from the sellers and for which I can show the documents, my Lord. Q: I am putting it to you that you did not import the wood boiler as you do not have import documents covering same. A: That is not true, my Lord. I imported the wood boiler. Q: I am putting it to you that the proforma invoice you claim covers the sale transaction is fake. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 27 A: That is not correct, my Lord. Whether the invoice is referrable to the Plaintiff or not, it is not in doubt that it is PW1 who brought the said wood boiler and had same placed on the 1st Defendant’s premises; and DW2 confirmed that the wood boiler belonged to PW1. [34] Also, I find that PW1 himself did not produce any evidence of how the wood boiler looked like in its original state, and under cross-examination, PW1 gave the answers below: Q: You made mention of the wood boiler being damaged beyond mechanical relevance. A: Yes, my Lord. It was new and it has been cut – up, my Lord. Q: You do not have anything to show to this Court, as far as the wood boiler is concerned that the wood boiler has been damaged beyond mechanical relevance, no image etc. A: I took pictures on my phone but my phone got damaged so before this Court, I have nothing to show, my Lord. Q: You also do not have anything before this Court to show the wood boiler was purchased brand new. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 28 A: No, my Lord. But I purchased it brand new. The remains/remnants are even on the Defendants’ premises so anyone who sees it will see it is brand new, my Lord. [35] Apart from the answers above given by PW1, I find no further evidence to establish that the Plaintiff’s wood boiler had been destroyed beyond economical value, save the following questions posed by the Plaintiff’s Counsel whilst cross-examining DW3, the 2nd Defendant’s representative thus: Q: The scrap dealer removed the covering, the outer layer of the Plaintiff’s wood boiler, and that is what you see on the floor. A: Yes, my Lord. I think it was some of the scrap dealers’ boys who removed the covering. Q: On the day the Plaintiff’s wood boiler was peeled off the outer layer, he came to the company’s premises and you met him. Do you deny that? A: No, my Lord, that was the first time I saw the Plaintiff, my Lord. Q: You admit that when he came to the premises his wood boiler had been peeled off and the outer layer were on the ground. A: It is true. It was all part of the disposal we were doing, and that day was the day we were disposing off the scrap material on site to make way for construction, my Lord. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 29 Q: Are you honestly telling the Court a scrap dealer had peeled of the outer layer of Exhibit B and the item had not been sold to the scrap dealer? A: I repeat, the wood boiler was not sold because the wood boiler had no metal component. It was given to the scrap dealer to take away from the site because we needed the space. It was not sold, my Lord. Removing the outer covering of the wood boiler would not necessarily render the said boiler damaged beyond economic value, unless adequate evidence is adduced before this Court to establish that removing the outer covering of the Plaintiff’s said wood boiler rendered same damaged beyond economic value. [36] PW2, the Police Investigator also tendered in evidence Exhibits B, B1 as pictures of the original wood boiler, as well as Exhibits C and C1, said to be pictures of the damaged boiler. Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, after the close of the prosecution’s case also sought the leave of the Court to tender in evidence pictures of the said wood boiler taken whilst the wood boiler was on the 3rd Defendant’s premises. From all the evidence adduced, it is obvious that officers of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants admitted that there were items on the premises that had not been taken away from the premises sold to the 3rd Defendant, even after the expiration of the grace period given to the 1st Defendant to remove all items JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 30 from the premises; and under the contract of sale with the 1st Defendant, the 3rd Defendant had the liberty of removing all those items to make way for the development of the premises. It is on that basis that DW1 gave the answers below under cross-examination: Q: On the 14th of June, the Plaintiff’s boiler was damaged on your premises. Do you deny that? A: By that time, there were a lot of machinery that were being disposed of, so I could not have identified the said wood boiler at that time, my Lord. DW1 further answered: Q: In your evidence – in – chief, you instructed the 2nd Defendant to dispose of all movables from the premises. A: My Lord yes; and this instruction was given after time had lapsed and the construction needed to be started. Q: You have stated in your evidence – in – chief, paragraph 18, that the disposal of the wood boiler was done on the basis of your agreement with the vendor. A: Yes, my Lord, at the time of the disposal, we knew nothing about the said wood boiler being the name of that object. It was residue of some item that we were taking away. Even that said item, was JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 31 at all materials being moved around the premises for 2nd Defendant to get the space to start work, my Lord; and it was cleared with other residue. Q: If I get you right, you said even if the wood boiler was damaged, it was not intentional because you needed space? A: Yes, my Lady. I said so. And I said that because of the question Counsel asked, that we destroyed the wood boiler, my Lord. [37] It is therefore more probable than not, that in disposing of the items on the premises, the said boiler may have been damaged; but the Plaintiff and PW1 specifically described the damage as being beyond commercial value. This is a matter of fact to be established by evidence adduced by the Plaintiff herein, but I find that no evidence was adduced to establish that the said wood boiler has been damaged beyond economical value, save some pictures tendered in evidence by PW2, which really does not show much. [38] It was also in the Plaintiff’s Counsel’s address that he sought to submit that the boiler had been damaged beyond economical value; but on the strength of the evidence adduced, save the oral averments of the PW1 and the pleadings of the Plaintiff, no substantial evidence was adduced to establish that the Plaintiff’s wood boiler has been damaged ‘beyond commercial value’, save that there is no doubt that the said wood boiler was damaged when officers of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants sought to clear the premises and attempted to dispose of all items from the premises by calling in a scrap dealer to come for those items, including the Plaintiff’s wood boiler. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 32 [39] Having established that the outer covering of the wood boiler was stripped is unfortunately not proof that the wood boiler was damaged beyond economic value. It could very well be that the aesthetic beauty of the wood boiler was destroyed, but there needs to be adequate evidence that stripping the wood boiler destroyed it beyond economic value, but I find that no such evidence was adduced, and so this Court cannot establish that the wood boiler in contention was damaged beyond economical value. I proceed to deal with the following legal issues: 3. ISSUES TWO & FIVE - Whether or not the destruction of the Plaintiff’s wood boiler by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants was unlawful and wrongful. - Whether or not the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have any reasonable justification for destroying the Plaintiff’s wood boiler. [40] From the evidence so far adduced, there is no iota of evidence to establish that the Defendants were ever made aware that the Plaintiff herein had a wood boiler deposited on premises which had lawfully been sold to the 3rd Defendant herein. There is also no evidence to establish that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were aware that PW1 was the owner of some wood boiler that was on the premises sold to the 3rd Defendant but failed to call him to come and remove the wood boiler from the premises. The above is the Plaintiff’s main contentions, but no JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 33 evidence was adduced to establish same, save the answers that PW1 gave under cross-examination thus: Q: You testified that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants knew about the ownership of the wood boiler, that they knew it was for you. A: Yes, my Lord. Q: You neither met the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, you never engaged them after the sale of the property until at the Police Station. A: Yes, my Lord. Q: Based on your testimony it will be dishonest on your part to claim the 2nd and 3rd Defendants knew the wood boiler was yours and therefore had to contact you. A: They knew it was mine because Mohammed told me he had told them that the wood boiler belonged to me. Also, even after they had sold the wood boiler and it was being cut – up, the security man at the place told them it was for me but they ignored him. At the Police station, the Defendants made an agreement with the 1st Defendant that after the 3 months if the 1st Defendant doesn’t remove all the items on the plot, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants would dispose of them. (Emphasis is mine) JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 34 [41] The said security man was not produced before this Court though; but Mohammed Barrakat was, as DW2, and he gave the answers below under cross-examination: Q: Have you met the site Manager before? A: Yes, my Lord. Q: Did you tell him anything about the Plaintiff’s wood boiler? A: I did not mention the wood boiler to anybody, my Lord. Q: You told the site Manager of Afotech Global Company Ltd, (2nd Defendant) that the wood boiler did not belong to Habitat Company. A: I did not. The wood boiler, no one knew to whom it belonged, except me and Kwaku Duah, my Lord. Q: Before you travelled to Lebanon, you told the site Manager that this wood boiler did not belong to Habitat Company Ltd. A: No, please. Q: Take a look at paragraph 17 of your witness statement. By Court: - JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 35 Counsel reads it out. Q: Do you now admit you have said this before this Court or you deny? A: I did not inform the site Manager, my Lord. Q: If you did not inform the site Manager, why did you say in your witness statement that you informed the site Manager? A: It could be that I said it, because the witness statement has passed 2 years. I quite remember that Twellium does not know the owner of the wood boiler, my Lord. (sic) [42] DW2 therefore expressly informed the Court that he did not inform any of the Defendants that the wood boiler in contention belonged to the Plaintiff; but it appears Counsel for the Plaintiff did not believe the answers furnished by DW2 above. As such, Counsel for the Plaintiff posed the following questions to DW2 under cross-examination: Q: If you told the site Manager the wood boiler did not belong to Habitat, then at least he knew that it had an owner, other than Habitat. Do you agree with me? A: I just told him it is not for Habitat. So if it has an owner or not, he will not know because I did not inform him of the owner. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 36 Q: I suggest to you that you are giving this evidence with the view of covering the wrongs of the 2nd Defendant. A: I cannot determine if what they did was wrong or not because I was not around, my Lord. [43] Once again, save the questions posed by the Plaintiff’s Counsel, suggesting that DW2 was being untruthful, I find that no iota of evidence was adduced to establish that DW2 or even PW1 ever informed any of the Defendants or any other person that the wood boiler on the premises sold to the 3rd Defendant belonged to the Plaintiff herein. PW1 himself confirmed that he was informed by Mohammed Barrakat that the 1st Defendant’s premises had been sold and PW1 needed to come and take away the forklift and the boiler; but PW1 only went for the forklift, still leaving behind the wood boiler. Under cross-examination, PW1 gave the answers below: Q: Sometime in May 2021, Mohammed Barrakat visited you in your office and told you the property had been sold so come and take your items off the property? A: Yes, My Lord, on the day he was travelling to his hometown, but I cannot remember the exact date. PW1 further answered: Q: You heard about the sale of the property? JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 37 A: Yes, my Lord. I heard about the sale when Mohammed came to tell me that he was going to his hometown because the premises had been sold. Q: Do you remember exactly when you heard about it? A: I cannot remember the date, my Lord. Q: Sometime in May 2021, Mohammed Barrakat visited you in your office and told you the property had been sold so come and take your items off the property? A: Yes, My Lord, on the day he was travelling to his hometown, but I cannot remember the exact date. Q: I am putting it to you that the said visit took place in May 2021. A: I remember he came but I cannot remember the date he came, my Lord. Q: This visit was after several calls on you to come and take your items from the property. A: That is not correct, my Lord. My office is close to Mohammed’s premises, about 400 metres away so he never called me. He only came to tell me on the day he was leaving to find time and come for my things. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 38 Q: Essentially, the distance between your office and Mohammed’s premises is such that you could walk to each other’s premises? A: Yes, my Lord. Q: Since you got to know the property was sold, you kept moving in front of the property? A: I drove past the premises to my office and also drive past on my way home, my Lord. [44] There is also adequate evidence to establish that after purchasing the demised premises, the 3rd Defendant granted the vendor three months to remove all items on the property, and it is clear that it was at the time the premises was sold that PW1 was asked to come and remove his items but PW1 clearly failed to do so. PW1 added that his office was close to the demised premises; and so he ought to have at least seen that there was some activity going on, but he failed to go for his machine until it had been given to scrap dealers. [45] From the above therefore, I do not have evidence to be satisfactorily convinced that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were aware that the said wood boiler belonged to either the Plaintiff company or PW1 at any point after the 1st Defendant’s premises had been sold to the 3rd Defendant. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 39 From the contract of sale between the 1st and 3rd Defendants and tendered in evidence, it is clear that the premises was sold to the 3rd Defendant on the 28th of January 2021, and it was on the 14th of June 2021 that PW1 was said to have lodged the complaint that his new wood boiler had been cut up and damaged by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ officers. [46] Furthermore, as deduced by this Court, the 1st Defendant never granted PW1 the permission to place his items on the premises; and it is also obvious that the sale of the premises was between the 1st and the 3rd Defendants. It had nothing to do with the Plaintiff herein, and so whatever arrangements the 3rd Defendant had with the 1st Defendant was solely between them. From the evidence, the 3rd Defendant granted the 1st Defendant three months to remove all items from the premises and not the Plaintiff. Indeed, whether the grace period was three months or six months, the 3rd Defendant, I find, had no obligation whatsoever towards the Plaintiff herein. [47] There is also evidence to the effect that there were other decommissioned wood boilers on the same premises and DW2 confirmed same when he stated under cross-examination: Q: There were several old wood boilers on Habitat premises, i.e. wood boilers which were not in use. A: Yes, my Lord. Q: Were you having about 4 or 5 wood boilers not in use? A: Yes, two of them, my Lord. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 40 [48] From the date the said wood boiler was purchased till June 2021, the wood boiler had been deposited and was sitting on the 1st Defendant’s premises. If therefore there were other wood boilers not in use on the premises, how could those be distinguished from the Plaintiff’s said wood boiler? [49] There was also the added condition in the sales agreement that after the time granted to the 1st Defendant, if there were any items left on the premises, the 3rd Defendant was at liberty to have them removed. From the evidence adduced, I find that is exactly what the 3rd Defendant contracted the 2nd Defendant to do, to clear the premises of all unwanted items to make way for development. With all due respect to the Plaintiff and his Counsel, even after being informed that the premises had been sold, PW1 still failed to remove his wood boiler. The 3rd Defendant was therefore justified in getting rid of all items on the premises when it decided to develop the property it had lawfully purchased. For that reason, this Court does not consider removing all ‘unremoved’ items from the premises as causing damage to those properties left on the premises. In my candid opinion, the 3rd Defendant was justified in clearing the premises and causing a scrap dealer to remove the items not needed by the 3rd Defendant. [50] No evidence was thus adduced by the Plaintiff to even remotely suggest that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants unlawfully and wrongfully caused damage to the Plaintiff’s wood boiler because I find that before the incident that led to this suit, neither the 2nd or 3rd Defendant knew about the Plaintiff’s wood boiler. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 41 It is also clear that no one had come to claim the said wood boiler from the date the premises was purchased by the 3rd Defendant in January 2021 until the date the 3rd Defendant decided to commence construction sometime in May 2021. The Defendants were thus justified in getting rid of all items on the premises because the ownership of the wood boiler was unknown in the first place. [51] Again, since the said wood boiler remained unremoved and unclaimed, there was nothing to demonstrate that it was a wood boiler that was in use and ought to have been preserved by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. [52] The 2nd and 3rd Defendants herein, I find, can thus not be held liable for unlawful and wrongful destruction because no evidence was adduced to establish their intention to destroy the Plaintiff’s property or cause damage to same. This may not be a criminal matter, but the Plaintiff herein is alleging wrongful and unlawful damage. It is trite that in order to establish unlawful damage, evidence ought to be adduced to establish that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants intentionally caused the said damage unlawfully. Delving into criminal law, intent has been defined as the mens rea and there ought to be the intention to negligently and recklessly cause damage to the Plaintiff’s property. I find none of these elements in the present circumstances, as the evidence all point to the fact that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants only intended to clear premises that they had lawfully purchased to make way for development. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 42 [53] The Plaintiff has thus not been able to sufficiently establish that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants unlawfully and wrongfully caused damage to his wood boiler, as I find that the 3rd Defendant was justified in having the premises cleared. The wood boiler, having been destroyed in the process is unfortunately not sufficient evidence to establish that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants unlawfully and intentionally caused damage to the said wood boiler. Having made the above findings, I proceed to determine the final issues thus: 4. ISSUES THREE & SIX - Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to the full commercial value of the wood boiler. - And any reasonable or probable issue(s) arising from the pleadings. [54] From the evidence so far adduced before this Court, I hold that no liability attaches the 3rd Defendant purchaser, who knew not of the ownership of the said wood boiler and who had had cause to inform the seller to remove all items from the premises lawfully purchased (after a stated grace period). The 3rd Defendant purchaser had the obligation, under the contract of sale, to remove all items found on the premises after the expiration of the grace period granted and it did just that. [55] Likewise, I find that no liability also attaches the 2nd Defendant because it was contracted by the 3rd Defendant and merely acted under the instructions of the 3rd Defendant. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 43 [56] I thus hold that the Plaintiff herein is not entitled to the recovery of the full commercial value of the wood boiler that the Plaintiff claims was brand new and had been damaged beyond economic value, at least from neither the 2nd nor the 3rd Defendant because he was unable to adduce any evidence to establish that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants recklessly, negligently and unlawfully caused damage to its wood boiler. 5. CONCLUSION [57] For the above reasons, I find that the Plaintiff herein is not entitled to any of the reliefs he claims against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants herein; and the Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed in their entirety. Considering the entire circumstances of this case and having regard to the time this matter has been pending before this Court, I shall award nominal costs of Gh¢20,000.00 in favour of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants herein and against the Plaintiff. SGD. JUSTICE PATRICIA QUANSAH HIGH COURT ‘6’ GENERAL JURISDICTION KUMASI, ASHANTI REGION. 10TH NOVEMBER 2023. JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 44 COUNSEL: H. K. KODUAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT McBEN KWAME ADU – ASAMOAH ESQ. FOR THE 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS PRESENT JUDGMENT – LOGS COURT CO. vrs HABITAT COMPANY & 2 ORS 45