Suncity Pharmacy and 2 Others Vrs Kadennis and 2 Others [2022] GHAHC 124 (4 November 2022)

Suncity Pharmacy and 2 Others Vrs Kadennis and 2 Others [2022] GHAHC 124 (4 November 2022)

The 1st Plaintiff lacked capacity to sue as there was no board or general meeting authorization; the distributorship agreement was entered into without proper authority. However, the 2nd Plaintiff established ownership of the converted goods, and the Defendants' actions amounted to conversion. The Defendants' counterclaim for unfair competition failed as there was no enforceable exclusive distributorship and no evidence of unfair competition by the Plaintiffs.

Citation
[2022] GHAHC 124
Parties
Plaintiff: Suncity Pharmacy; Plaintiff: AG Stars West Africa Ltd; Plaintiff: George Asante; Defendant: Kadennis Company Ltd; Defendant: Dennis Bienni; Defendant: Michael Akafia
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
4 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims largely dismissed except for conversion; judgment for 2nd Plaintiff for value of converted goods and clearing charges; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Conversion, Corporate Capacity, Exclusive Distributorship, Unfair Competition, Fraud, Damages
Source Language
English
Commercial Law Tort Law Company Law Conversion Corporate Capacity Exclusive Distributorship Unfair Competition Fraud +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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suncity Pharmacy

Plaintiff

AG Stars West Africa Ltd

Plaintiff

George Asante

Plaintiff

Kadennis Company Ltd

Defendant

Dennis Bienni

Defendant

Michael Akafia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Plaintiff had capacity to sue
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs had a cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants converted the Plaintiffs' goods

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st Plaintiff lacked capacity to sue as there was no board or general meeting authorization; the distributorship agreement was entered into without proper authority. However, the 2nd Plaintiff established ownership of the converted goods, and the Defendants' actions amounted to conversion. The Defendants' counterclaim for unfair competition failed as there was no enforceable exclusive distributorship and no evidence of unfair competition by the Plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims largely dismissed except for conversion; judgment for 2nd Plaintiff for value of converted goods and clearing charges; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • 1st Plaintiff struck out for lack of capacity
  • Judgment for 2nd Plaintiff for USD 18,000 or cedi equivalent plus interest from 8 May 2015