OCTILLIONS FZE VRS. SAHARA ROYAL GOLD REFINERY AND ANOTHER (CM/RPC/0100/2020) [2024] GHAHC 153 (9 July 2024)

OCTILLIONS FZE VRS. SAHARA ROYAL GOLD REFINERY AND ANOTHER (CM/RPC/0100/2020) [2024] GHAHC 153 (9 July 2024)

The Defendants breached the Gold Sale and Purchase Agreement by failing to deliver the contracted quantity of gold for which they received payment, and failed to refund the outstanding sums and deposit as required by the contract. The Plaintiff's assayer's report was contractually binding for determining quantity and price. The Defendants' allegations of fraud and frustration were unsupported by evidence. The Plaintiff is entitled to the sums claimed, agreed damages for non-delivery, and interest. The Defendants' counterclaim is dismissed for lack of proof.

Citation
OCTILLIONS FZE VRS. SAHARA ROYAL GOLD REFINERY AND ANOTHER (CM/RPC/0100/2020) [2024] GHAHC 153 (9 July 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff: Octillions FZE; 1st Defendant: Sahara Royal Gold Refinery; 2nd Defendant: Godwin Kwaku Amekuedi
Court
ghahc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
9 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Breach of Contract / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff; Defendants held jointly and severally liable; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Sale of Goods, Personal Guarantee, Damages for Non Delivery, Counterclaim Dismissal
Source Language
eng
Contract Law Commercial Law Breach of Contract Sale of Goods Personal Guarantee Damages for Non Delivery Counterclaim Dismissal

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Octillions FZE

Plaintiff

Sahara Royal Gold Refinery

1st Defendant

Godwin Kwaku Amekuedi

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Breach of Contract / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the agreed terms of the Gold Sale and Purchase Agreement and Personal Guarantee?
  2. 2 Whether Plaintiff or Defendants breached contractual obligations?
  3. 3 Whether Plaintiff is entitled to claimed sums and damages?

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants breached the Gold Sale and Purchase Agreement by failing to deliver the contracted quantity of gold for which they received payment, and failed to refund the outstanding sums and deposit as required by the contract. The Plaintiff's assayer's report was contractually binding for determining quantity and price. The Defendants' allegations of fraud and frustration were unsupported by evidence. The Plaintiff is entitled to the sums claimed, agreed damages for non-delivery, and interest. The Defendants' counterclaim is dismissed for lack of proof.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff; Defendants held jointly and severally liable; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Plaintiff US$370,818.62 (comprising US$105,298.62, US$190,000, US$40,000 refundable deposit, and US$35,520 damages for non-delivery)
  • Interest on US$370,818.62 at prevailing commercial bank rate from 24th May, 2018 until final payment