ANIM-BOATENG VRS. VANKOFF SHIPPERS AND OTHERS (E12/09/2021) [2024] GHAHC 166 (31 January 2024)

ANIM-BOATENG VRS. VANKOFF SHIPPERS AND OTHERS (E12/09/2021) [2024] GHAHC 166 (31 January 2024)

Defendants failed to prove shoes were damaged or that Plaintiff refused payment. Defendants unlawfully sold Plaintiff’s shoes without notice or consent. Plaintiff’s claim for recovery of shoes is an equitable relief for specific performance and not statute barred. Defendants’ counterclaims for demurrage and costs are unsupported and dismissed. Judgment for Plaintiff for recovery of shoes and costs.

Citation
ANIM-BOATENG VRS. VANKOFF SHIPPERS AND OTHERS (E12/09/2021) [2024] GHAHC 166 (31 January 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kingsley Anim-Boateng; Lawful Attorney for Plaintiff: Ofosu Isaac; Defendant: Vankoff Shippers; Defendant: Kofi Botchway; Defendant: Black Star Line, Tema
Court
ghahc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
31 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
judgment for plaintiff
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Specific Performance, Damages, Statute of Limitation, Laches, Counterclaim
Source Language
eng
Contract Shipping Commercial Breach of Contract Specific Performance Damages Statute of Limitation Laches +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kingsley Anim-Boateng

Plaintiff

Ofosu Isaac

Lawful Attorney for Plaintiff

Vankoff Shippers

Defendant

Kofi Botchway

Defendant

Black Star Line, Tema

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Defendant took custody of the Plaintiff’s shoes as Managing Director of the 1st and 3rd Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Defendant issued written summary covering the shoes to the Plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether Defendants prior to taking custody of the 135 boxes of shoes ever complained about the state of the shoes

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to prove shoes were damaged or that Plaintiff refused payment. Defendants unlawfully sold Plaintiff’s shoes without notice or consent. Plaintiff’s claim for recovery of shoes is an equitable relief for specific performance and not statute barred. Defendants’ counterclaims for demurrage and costs are unsupported and dismissed. Judgment for Plaintiff for recovery of shoes and costs.

Court Disposition

judgment for plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendants to deliver 2,915 pairs of mixed shoes or monetary value thereof to Plaintiff
  • Defendants to pay costs of Gh¢50,000.00 to Plaintiff