DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VRS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER (CM/RPC/1169/2019) [2025] GHAHC 29 (24 January 2025)

DOMINION INT. PETROLEUM LTD. VRS. DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER (CM/RPC/1169/2019) [2025] GHAHC 29 (24 January 2025)

Plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the 1st Defendant owed the claimed sum or that there was an agreement for 27% compound interest. The evidence showed the outstanding debt was not established against the 1st Defendant, and the Plaintiff's claim was based on transactions with a different...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] GHAHC 29
Parties
Plaintiff: Dominion International Petroleum Ltd.; 1st Defendant: Deliman Oil Company Ltd.; 2nd Defendant: Mesuna Deliman
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
24 January 2025
Case Number
CM/RPC/1169/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Division) / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Debt Recovery, Breach of Contract, Corporate Personality, Interest on Debt, Fraud Allegations
Source Language
english
Commercial Law Contract Law Debt Recovery Breach of Contract Corporate Personality Interest on Debt Fraud Allegations

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominion International Petroleum Ltd.

Plaintiff

Deliman Oil Company Ltd.

1st Defendant

Mesuna Deliman

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Division) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff supplied the 1st Defendant petroleum products worth GHS7,188,948.90 and the extent of payments made.
  2. 2 Whether the parties agreed to a compound interest rate of 27% per month on outstanding balances.
  3. 3 Whether the 1st Defendant was required to pay for petroleum products within 30 days per the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the 1st Defendant owed the claimed sum or that there was an agreement for 27% compound interest. The evidence showed the outstanding debt was not established against the 1st Defendant, and the Plaintiff's claim was based on transactions with a different entity (Deliman & Co. Ltd.), which was not a party to the suit. No sufficient evidence of breach, enforceable agreement, or fraud was adduced.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's reliefs for recovery of GHS10,986,788.02, interest, and damages are denied.
  • Cost of GHS5,000.00 awarded to Defendants against Plaintiff.