[ 2012-07-10 ]

AAL busted for presenting ‘fake documents’ in court
In the wake of the seemingly unending controversy
over the $1.5 billion Galloper vehicles saga, the
State is said to have abandoned - that has been
given a lot of propaganda touch by government spin
doctors - The New Crusading GUIDE has come across
a Supreme Court ruling which indicates that Africa
Automobile Limited had made frantic efforts to
implicate the Government in another purported deal
regarding a credit facility.

Africa Automobile Limited filed a court suit on 31
January, 2008 averring that by a letter dated 27
January, 1997, it had accepted the Ministry of
Information’s request for a credit facility and
entered into an agreement with the government
regarding the sale and servicing of vehicles by it
(Africa Automobile).

At the Commercial Division of the Accra High
Court, presided over by Her Ladyship Justice
Torkornoo, the company was floored as the learned
judge found out that there was no validly binding
agreement between Africa Automobile and the
government.

Dissatisfied, the company appealed against the
ruling. After several appeals, the case went to
the Supreme Court for a final determination.

Having gone through the merits of the case, the
Supreme Court presided over by Justice Date-Baah
on June 6, 2012, upheld the ruling by the High
Court which stated, “Before judgment could be
given, the Attorney-General’s representative
reappeared and said that the State wished to
submit to judgment in the sum of 14,174,693.12
Ghana cedis being what was entered as default
judgment. My understanding of my role as a judge
is that I am required to give judgment on the
evidence laid before me and not as directed by the
parties. I have a duty to implement the ethic of
competence, which requires adjudication based on
evaluation of evidence. Instead of entering
judgment as submitted by the State, I have chosen
to examine the evidence and give my judgment based
on the evidence.”

Touching on what were tendered in evidence as
constituting a contract agreement being claimed by
Africa Automobile Ltd. (Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’), the
Supreme Court referred to the ruling of Justice
Appau of the Court of Appeal thus, “The names of
the Ag. Chief Director and the Deputy (with their
alleged specimen signatures) were merely inserted
in the letter as persons who would sign for and on
behalf of the 1st defendant/respondent without
indicating who the author of the letter was. On
the face, Exhibit ‘B’ appears fake and
unauthentic. I cannot therefore fathom how the
Attorney-General’s office could gloss over the
serious effects in Exhibit ‘B’ and commit the
State to the payment of the whopping sum of over
14 million Ghana cedis on mere maintenance and
servicing of 1st defendant/respondent vehicles
when on the evidence, plaintiff was not entitled
to that sum.” It therefore upheld this ruling.

Exhibit ‘A’ was a letter from the automobile
company that spelt out the interest rate on the
outstanding amount at the end of each month (3%);
loss of use of the outstanding amount (4%) and
bank and other expenses (0.5%).

The Ministry of Information (government) was
supposed to sign, date and stamp a copy of the
letter; but this was never done, and yet Africa
Automobile termed it a contract – which was
Exhibit ‘B’.

According to the Supreme Court, “The evidence
shows that the Ministry never signed, dated and
stamped a copy of Exhibit ‘A’. Rather, the
evidence given of its alleged acceptance of the
plaintiff’s offer of credit terms was in the shape
of Exhibit ‘B’. On these facts, the learned trial
High Court judge held that no contract had been
established on the credit terms alleged to be
binding on the defendant,”

The Court continued, “My understanding of the
plaintiff’s witness’s evidence is that the sum
presented to this court was calculated from the
terms outlined in Exhibit ‘A’. But a cursory look
at Exhibit ‘A’ shows that it is a letter
communicating a unilateral decision on how bills
to customers would be calculated and requesting
that acceptance of the terms should be indicated
by signing, dating and stamping a copy of the same
letter. No such copy of the same letter signed,
dated and stamped was presented showing acceptance
of the terms urged on me as indicating a
contract”

The earlier trial judge at the High Court had
established that “the defendant had used the
plaintiff’s services between January 1994 and
November 1998 and incurred a bill of 19,406,371
cedis. Some payments had been made, leaving a
balance of 15,636,482.00 cedis as at15 April,
1999.”

Making reference to this finding by the lower
court which was presided over by Her Ladyship
Justice Torkornoo, the Supreme Court underscored,
“Since there was no evidence of payment of that
debt, she ordered defendant to pay the outstanding
debt of 1,563.64 Ghana cedis with interest on it
at the prevailing commercial banking interest rate
from April 1999 to date of final payment.”

Source - New Crusading Guide

... go Back