Dachel and Company Ltd Vrs Friesland Frico Domo [2011] GHASC 46 (22 June 2011)

Dachel and Company Ltd Vrs Friesland Frico Domo [2011] GHASC 46 (22 June 2011)

Non-compliance with Order 2 r.4 was a procedural irregularity, not a nullity, as the subject matter was within the court's jurisdiction and no injustice was occasioned. The plaintiff was entitled to compensation under English law as incorporated in the agency agreement. However, the quantum of general damages was excessive and reduced to $280,000 with interest; the special damages award was upheld.

Citation
[2011] GHASC 46
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Dachel & Company Limited; Defendant/appellant: Friesland Frico Domo (now known as Friesland Foods BV)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
22 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed with variation
Legal Topics
Service Out of Jurisdiction, Agency Termination, Compensation for Agents, Procedural Irregularity, Damages Assessment
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Agency Law Service Out of Jurisdiction Agency Termination Compensation for Agents Procedural Irregularity Damages Assessment

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dachel & Company Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Friesland Frico Domo (now known as Friesland Foods BV)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-compliance with Order 2 r.4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN 140A) rendered the proceedings void
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation upon termination of the agency agreement
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of damages awarded was justified

Ratio Decidendi

Non-compliance with Order 2 r.4 was a procedural irregularity, not a nullity, as the subject matter was within the court's jurisdiction and no injustice was occasioned. The plaintiff was entitled to compensation under English law as incorporated in the agency agreement. However, the quantum of general damages was excessive and reduced to $280,000 with interest; the special damages award was upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with variation

Orders

  • General damages reduced to $280,000 with interest at prevailing USD rate from date of High Court judgment to final payment
  • Special damages of GH¢4,700 upheld