Golden Grace Ltd Vrs Takoradi Flour Mills Ltd [2011] GHASC 50 (20 July 2011)

Golden Grace Ltd Vrs Takoradi Flour Mills Ltd [2011] GHASC 50 (20 July 2011)

The retention of the documents by the defendant was lawful as the documents were held as security for debts owed and were returned promptly upon settlement of the debt. The return of a certified true copy instead of the original was acceptable as no unfairness or authenticity issue was raised. There was no basis to disturb the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.

Citation
[2011] GHASC 50
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Golden Grace Limited; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Takoradi Flour Mills Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
20 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed
Legal Topics
Mortgage, Lien, Unlawful Detention of Documents, Sale of Goods, Appeals
Source Language
English
Property Law Contract Law Commercial Law Mortgage Lien Unlawful Detention of Documents Sale of Goods Appeals

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Golden Grace Limited

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

Takoradi Flour Mills Limited

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the retention of the plaintiff's documents by the defendant was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was obliged to return the original documents or if a certified true copy sufficed
  3. 3 Whether the findings of fact by the lower courts should be disturbed

Ratio Decidendi

The retention of the documents by the defendant was lawful as the documents were held as security for debts owed and were returned promptly upon settlement of the debt. The return of a certified true copy instead of the original was acceptable as no unfairness or authenticity issue was raised. There was no basis to disturb the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed