An Accra High Court, Commercial Division has adjourned the matter of alleged breach of the distribution agreement contract between Dram Oil and Trading Limited and Alfapetro Ghana Limited to October 13, 2025.
The trial, which was supposed to commence on June 10, 2025, was adjourned at the instance of the defence counsel.
A letter dated June 9, 2025, addressed to the Registrar of the Court, said, “We were recently instructed by Defendant in the matter and have been informed that the court has scheduled the commencement of trial for 10 June 2025.”
The letter said, unfortunately, Ace Anan Ankomah, who had the personal conduct of this matter, had had to travel out of jurisdiction and would be unable to attend court.
“We thus humbly request that the matter be adjourned to 8, 9, and 10 July 2025, subject to the court’s convenience,” it said.
The Court, presided over by Justice Mavis Akua Andoh, after in camera consultation with the parties, adjourned the matter to October 2025 for commencement of the trial.
Dram Oil (the Plaintiff) wants an order to recover the sum of USD887,671.69 (or 11,362,197.63 equivalent, calculated using the March 2024 prevailing exchange rate of GH12.8 to USD 1) being the principal of under-recoveries money due to it and received by Alfapetro Ghana Limited (Defendant) from the National Petroleum Authority under the category labelled Tranche 1 but which defendant allegedly refused or failed to pay over to the plaintiff.
It also wants an order for an interest on the sum of USD 887,671.69 in Tranche 1, currently standing at 54,458,449.38, being the applicable interest rate of 46 per cent per annum.
This will include the facility interest rate incurred by the plaintiff on account of the defendant’s default, calculated from December 2013, when the defendant ought to have disclosed and liquidated Tranche 1’s payments to the plaintiff in respect of the under-recovery monies they received thereto, until December 2023, when the Amended Writ of
Summons and statement of Claim was issued, with the accrued interest to be recalculated at the date of final payment.
The plaintiff again wants a recovery of the sum of USD79,977.26 (or GHC1,023,708.93 equivalent, calculated using the March 2024 prevailing exchange rate of GH12.8 to USD 1).
It said this was the principal of under-recoveries money due to the plaintiff and received by the defendant from the Petroleum Authority under the category labelled Tranche 2, but which the defendant allegedly refused or failed to pay over to the plaintiff.
“Interest on the sum USD 79,977.26 Tranche 2, currently standing at 3,767,248.87, being applicable interest rate of 46 per cent per annum,” it said.
This included the facility interest rate incurred by the plaintiff on account of the Defendant’s default calculated from April 2016 when the defendant ought to have liquidated Tranche 2’s payments to the plaintiff in respect of the under recovery monies they received thereto, until March 2024 when the Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim was issued, with the accrued interest to be re-calculated at the date of final payment.
Dram Oil wants a recovery of the sum of USD1,325,207.45 or the Ghana Cedis equivalent, calculated using the March 2024 prevailing exchange rate of GHC12.8 to USD1, being the principal of direct sales proceeds outstanding and due to the plaintiff and received by the defendant from the OMCs, but which defendant has allegedly failed to pay.
It required an interest on the sum USD 1,325,207.45 in direct sales, which currently stands at GHC78,028,214.50, being an applicable interest rate of 46 per cent per annum.
The facility interest rate incurred by the plaintiff on account of the defendant’s default, calculated from December 2013 when the defendant ought to have disclosed and paid to the plaintiff the direct sales of monies received from the OMCs, until December 2023, with the accrued interest to be re-calculated at the date of final payment.
The plaintiff states that sometime in 2012, the Managing Director of the defendant, Mr. Eric Forson, contacted the Chief Executive Officer of the plaintiff, Mr. Randolph Koranteng, to plead with him to consider giving him and his company, the defendant, a distribution contract for some of the plaintiff’s oil trading work which it was undertaking.
The plaintiff averred that based on Mr. Forson’s pleas of business from the plaintiff and on account of plaintiff CEO’s willingness to assist Mr. Forson with some business, on or about September 13, 2012, it entered into a distribution agreement with the defendant to distribute 7,100 metric tons of petroleum products which the plaintiff had imported into the country for sale using a credit facility, being Letters of Credit, worth US$ 9,993,529.00.
The Letter of Credit was issued to the plaintiff by the then UT Bank Ghana Limited (now defunct and taken over by GCB Bank Limited) pursuant to a Trade Finance Credit Facility Line established with the said bank.
The plaintiff states that under the terms of this distribution agreement executed with the defendant, it agreed to distribute the said products on behalf of the Dram Oil and was also responsible for issuing proforma invoices to oil marketing companies provided by the plaintiff showing the quantity, price and load point of the said product.
It said it was agreed with the defendant that the defendant was to pay all proceeds realised from the sale of the products into a specific Collection Account at UT Bank established by Dram Oil.
“The plaintiff avers that by so doing, the parties also agreed that the defendant will be entitled to a distribution fee of US$8.00 per metric ton of the products distributed, and for which full payments were duly effected to the defendant,” it added.
It said following the execution of the distribution agreement, sometime after December 2012 and at least by the end of January 2013, the defendant had completed the distribution of the 7,100 metric tons of petroleum products purchased and imported by the plaintiff.
It said rather that the defendant, through Mr. Forson, had since then allegedly refused, ignored or neglected to pay the full under-recoveries received from the Authority for the distribution of the plaintiff’s cargo, which under recovery was due to the plaintiff by reason of the terms of the distribution agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
