The Big Boys Company Limited Vrs Access Bank Ghana Limited [2022] GHASC 68 (1 June 2022)

The Big Boys Company Limited Vrs Access Bank Ghana Limited [2022] GHASC 68 (1 June 2022)

The Plaintiff failed to strictly prove special damages for loss of use of the crane; the Equipment Hire Agreement alone was insufficient. The attachment of the crane was unlawful, entitling the Plaintiff to general damages, but the award of USD 200,000 was excessive and reduced to USD 100,000. No fraud was proved to justify lifting the corporate veil. Damages may be awarded in foreign currency but paid in cedis.

Citation
The Big Boys Company Limited Vrs Access Bank Ghana Limited [2022] GHASC 68 (1 June 2022)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: The Big Boys Company Limited; Defendant/appellant/respondent/cross Appellant: Access Bank Ghana Limited
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
1 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Plaintiff's appeal dismissed; Defendant's cross-appeal succeeds in part.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Attachment, Special Damages, General Damages, Corporate Veil, Fraud, Privity of Contract, Award of Costs
Source Language
eng
Tort Law Contract Law Banking Law Corporate Law Wrongful Attachment Special Damages General Damages Corporate Veil +3 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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Big Boys Company Limited

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Access Bank Ghana Limited

Defendant/appellant/respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the attachment of the Plaintiff's crane by the Defendant was unlawful and actionable in damages
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff proved special damages for loss of use of the crane
  3. 3 Whether the award of general damages in the cedi equivalent of USD 200,000 was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to strictly prove special damages for loss of use of the crane; the Equipment Hire Agreement alone was insufficient. The attachment of the crane was unlawful, entitling the Plaintiff to general damages, but the award of USD 200,000 was excessive and reduced to USD 100,000. No fraud was proved to justify lifting the corporate veil. Damages may be awarded in foreign currency but paid in cedis.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's appeal dismissed; Defendant's cross-appeal succeeds in part.

Orders

  • Award of USD 200,000 general damages set aside and replaced with USD 100,000 general damages (cedi equivalent) to Plaintiff for unlawful attachment of crane.
  • All other reliefs and costs as varied by the Court of Appeal affirmed.