JUDGMENT  
The Plaintiff, a Limited Liability Company incorporated under the laws of Ghana by the endorsement on her Writ of Summons is claiming the following against the Defendants jointly and severally: i. An order for the payment of the sum of Two Million, Seven Hundred and TwentyThousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢2,720,000.00) being the cost of Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) supplied to the 1st Defendant by the Plaintiff ii.  Interest on (i) at the prevailing bank rate from 8th January 2016 till date of final payment iii. General damages for breach of contract evidenced by 1st Defendant’s conduct in terms of the sale and purchase agreement between the parties hereto dated the 8th of January, 2014 iv. General damages for fraud evidenced by the 2nd Defendant’s conduct particularized in    paragraph 16. iv. Punitive costs.   
The Defendants entered appearance to Plaintiff’s writ but failed to file a defence. Default Judgment was therefore entered against them on the 22nd day of December 2015 in respect of 
2  
Plaintiffs reliefs (i.) and (ii.) and the matter adjourned for the assessment of damages. Again, on the 24th of February 2016, the Defendants even though having been served duly served with hearing notices for the assessment of damages failed to appear by themselves or by their counsel. This Court therefore proceeded to hear Plaintiffs evidence in proof of its claim for damages.  
Godwin Frazer, Plaintiff’s representative testified on behalf of Plaintiff, he stated that he, as the Commodity Manager of the Plaintiff Company, entered into a sale and purchase contract with the Defendants on the 8th day of January 2016 for the sale of  One Million (1,000,000) litres of Extra Neutral Alcohol (hereafter referred to as ENA) to the Defendants.  The evidence of Plaintiff’s representative was essentially in line with Plaintiff’s pleadings. In proof of Plaintiff’s claim for damages for breach of contract, the witness tendered in evidence as EXHIBIT A the sale and purchase agreement entered into between the Parties to the suit.  Clauses C and D OF EXHIBIT A stipulate that the 1st Defendant, represented by the 2nd Defendant, at the time of execution of the contract had satisfied the condition precedent for obtaining the Plaintiff’s consent to enter into the said contract by securing a guarantee bond for the sum of Two Million, Seven Hundred and Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢2,720,000.00) issued in favour of Plaintiff.  According to Plaintiff’s representative, the guarantee bond was to subsist for a period of 90 days as defined in clause 1 sub clause 1.1 of EXHIBIT A.  However, soon after the Parties executed the contract, the said guarantee bond was withdrawn. Plaintiff avers in paragraph 6 of its Statement of Claim that the Unique Insurance Company by a letter, dated the 17th of January, 2014 cancelled the guarantee bond  but  it is not clear to this court what gave rise to the  cancellation of the said guarantee bond. It is however not in dispute that the Defendants refused to replace the said guarantee bond in flagrant breach of the terms of the agreement.  According to the witness, in view of the Defendants refusal to replace the guarantee bond, Plaintiff cancelled the entire contract but was soon to discover that the 1st Defendant had through its Managing Director forged the signature of the witness and managed to evacuate over time , the entire consignment of ENA worth Two Million Seven Hundred and Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢2,720,000.00), from a customs bonded  warehouse without the knowledge or consent  of Plaintiff and without having made any payments  for same.  Plaintiff’s representative enumerated the losses suffered by plaintiff as a result of the said breach by the defendants to include, “currency loss” of Five Hundred and Twenty Five US Dollars (US$525.00), an amount of One Hundred and Twenty Eight Thousand US Dollars (US$128,000.00) spent on two independent security personnel and Two Hundred and Forty Thousand US Dollars (US$240,000.00) to “follow the transaction and to maintain a presence”.  He also gave the figure of Nine Hundred and Sixty 
3  
Thousand US Dollars (US$960,000.00) as representing loss of profits by the Plaintiff Company for the period material to the instant suit i.e. the period beginning January 2014 till January 2016.   
It would appear from the evidence of Plaintiff’s representative that the losses allegedly suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the Defendants breach were clearly calculable and quantifiable losses. In my opinion, these ought to have been specifically pleaded, particularized and proved in support of a claim for special damages if the Plaintiff expected this court to take into account all the specific amounts Plaintiff claims to have lost as a result of the Defendants breach. Be that as it may, the Plaintiffs’ claims before this Court, are for general damages for breach of contract and for general damages for fraud perpetrated on it by the Defendants. I must say, that I do not disregard the fact that general damages are by their very nature at large and that in their assessment, it lies within the discretion of the Court acting (of course,) within laid down principles, to grant an award that is fair and reasonable given the circumstances of each case. However, the Plaintiff would have assisted the Court in the proper exercise of its discretion, if it had provided more cogent evidence as to how those specific amounts were arrived at.  For instance, why was it necessary for the Plaintiff Company to engage the services of two security personnel at a cost of Two Hundred and Eighty Thousand US Dollar (US$280,000.00) when there is evidence on record that the matter had been reported to and was being investigated by the Ghana Police Service?  And what exactly gave rise to the Plaintiff’s total expenditure of Two Hundred and Forty Thousand US Dollars (US$240,000.00) which the witness stated was incurred in a bid to “follow this transaction and to maintain a presence”?  Additionally, what was the basis for the Plaintiff’s computation of loss of profits for the period between January 2014 and January 2016 which it pegs at Nine Hundred and Sixty Thousand US Dollars (US$960,000.00)?  
Having failed to provide this Court with the necessary details or particulars of the losses it alleges to have been incurred, the pertinent question at this stage is whether or not the Plaintiff should still be entitled an award of damages given the facts and circumstances of this case?   
In the case of DELMAS AGENCY V FOOD DISTRIBUTORS INTERNATIONAL LTD. 2007 - 2008 SCGLR , the Supreme Court held at page 748 as follows”…general damages is such as the law will presume to be natural or probable consequence of the Defendants acts.it arises by inference of the law and does not need to be proved by evidence.”   
It follows therefore, that Plaintiff should without further proof be entitled to an award of general damages once it is established that there has been an infringement of a legally enforceable right 
4  
by the Defendant.  AS stated earlier on in this judgement, the Defendants though having entered appearance, failed or refused to file a defence.  The evidence of the Plaintiff therefore stands unchallenged and this Court accepts the same.  I accordingly find that Defendants are in breach of the sale and purchase agreement entered in between the Parties on the 8th of January 2014.  On the 22nd day of December, 2015, this Court entered final judgement against the Defendants in favour of Plaintiff for the sum of Two Million, Seven Hundred and Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢2,720,000) being the cost of the ENA supplied to the Defendant by Plaintiff together with interest on the said sum at the prevailing bank rate from the 8th day of January until date of payment. The underlying principle governing the award of interest is to compensate a Plaintiff who, owing to the Defendant’s breach of contract has been deprived of the opportunity to work or trade with his money in order to earn a profit or an income. See the DICTUM OF DENNING MR in the case of HARBUTTS PLASTINE LTD VRS WAYNE TANK &PUMPCO LTD(1970)1AER 225@236. I therefore find that having been awarded interest by this court, Plaintiff has been adequately compensated for what Plaintiffs representative termed “loss of opportunity to conduct business” for the period commencing January 8, 2014 until date of final payment. Plaintiff makes a further claim for damages for breach of contract.  It is trite learning that the primary function of damages is to place the Plaintiff in as good a position (so far as money can do it) as if the matter complained of had never occurred.  I have already indicated the difficulty I face in determining the precise measure of damages to award in view of the inadequacy of the evidence placed before me, regarding the Plaintiff’s losses.  However, the uncontroverted evidence before this court shows the impunity with which the Defendants breached the terms of the contract entered into between the Parties.  
It is not in dispute that the conduct of the Defendants has caused Plaintiff great   inconvenience, embarrassment and as its representative testified, a disruption of its business dealings on the continent.  This in my opinion, should entitle Plaintiff to substantial damages.  It is the case of Plaintiff that at the time of entering into the contract in the year 2014 the ENA supplied to the Defendant based on the Bank of Ghana exchange rate was worth 1.2 Million US Dollars (US$1,200,000.00) in value. Unfortunately, due to the current depreciation of the cedi against the dollar, the value of the same quantity of ENA has fallen in cedi terms.  Clause G of Exhibit A stipulates that payment for the ENA will be based on the prevailing dollar exchange rate and the vendor (the Plaintiff) is entitled to recover any currency loss that may occur during the guarantee period. Quite clearly, the Plaintiff has been kept out of its money by the Defendants far beyond the 90 day guarantee period and is therefore entitled to damages for the said loss. 
5   
In The Supreme Court case of TEMA OIL REFINERY V AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE {2011} 2SCGLR 907, the Court held that in assessing damages for breach of contract, a Court is not only required to take into consideration the prevailing economic forces but is also required to consider the Defendants conduct and its net effect on the financial fortunes of Plaintiff company.  
The Plaintiff’s witness fixes the loss in value of the ENA at Five Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand US Dollars (US$525,000) or in this case, its Ghana cedi equivalent. This Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s representative apart from his bare assertions regarding the fall in the value of the cedi against the dollar, failed to furnish evidence to substantiate his claims. This notwithstanding, I am of the view that the steady decline in the value of the Ghana cedi to the dollar over the past two years coupled with the high rate of inflation is a matter in respect of which this Court may take judicial notice in accordance with SECTION 9 of the EVIDENCE ACT, NRCD 323.  Additionally, there is no evidence on record challenging the assertions of the witness. I therefore accept the evidence of Plaintiff’s witness regarding the loss in value of Plaintiff’s money and find that the said loss is attributable to the Defendants’ breach.  Accordingly, I shall take the said loss into account in assessing the quantum of damages payable to Plaintiff.  In computing the amount payable and in the light of the evidence led, I consider it safe for this Court to rely in the Bank of Ghana official web site which in my opinion is a credible source of information on current interest rates. The said official web site fixes the current Bank of Ghana interbank rate of interest at 25% as at March 2016. In view of the fact that Plaintiff has already been awarded interest on the said sum, the Plaintiff, in my view, should be entitled to an award in general damages that will represent a fair and reasonable compensation for  losses suffered other than the loss of profits.  By my computation, the Plaintiff will for the two year period, based on the Bank of Ghana interbank interest rate of 25%, be entitled to a minimum cumulative interest of One Million Three Hundred and Sixty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢1,360,000) which translates into Three Hundred and Fifty Three Thousand US Dollars (US$353,000.00) using the current Bank of Ghana Exchange Rate of $1 to ¢3.85.  In the circumstances, I consider it fair and reasonable to award plaintiff damages of Six Hundred and Sixty Two Thousand, Two Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH¢662,200.00) being the Ghana Cedi equivalent of One Hundred and Seventy Two Thousand US Dollars (US$172,000.00.  This amount represents the difference between the amount of Five Hundred and Twenty Five US Dollars (US$525.00) representing currency loss and the amount of Three Hundred and Fifty Three Thousand US Dollars (US$353,000.00) being the dollar equivalent of the interest awarded on the principal sum.  
6  
In support of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for fraud against the Defendants, Plaintiff’s witness tendered in evidence EXHIBIT B a police report purportedly issued in respect of a criminal investigation involving the 2nd Defendant and two other persons who are not Parties to the instant suit. Under SECTION 13 (i) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT NRCD 323, where it is alleged in a civil case that a crime has been committed by a party, the allegation must be proved to the same degree as the onus of proof required in criminal cases.  This means that proof of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.  I do not find that EXHIBIT B establishes beyond reasonable doubt that, the 2nd Defendant forged the signature of Gordon Frazer, Plaintiff’s representative.  Indeed, the said exhibit merely concludes that “it is highly probable that Gordon Frazer could not have authored any of the alleged authored signatures”.  No mention is made in EXHIBIT B of a finding that the 2nd Defendant forged the said signature a bid to secure the release to him of the ENA. Infact no mention is made of the ENA at all in the said exhibit.  I am also unable to accept the Plaintiffs assertion that the refusal of the Defendants to replace the guarantee bond necessarily constitutes fraud, when the evidence on record shows that there was a guarantee bond in existence at the time of executing the contract. The Plaintiff did not lead any evidence on what exactly gave rise to the withdrawal or cancellation of the said guarantee bond by the Unique Insurance Company, and in my opinion a refusal by the Defendants to replace the guarantee even though it amounted to a breach of the contractual terms did not necessarily amount to fraud. I do not consider it safe to infer fraud on the part of the Defendants on the basis of the evidence before me. I therefore hold that Plaintiff is not entitled to its claim for damages for fraud.  
Accordingly, I award Plaintiff an amount of Six Hundred and Six Two Thousand, Two Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH¢662,200.00) to be paid by the Defendants as general damages for breach of the contract.  
Costs of GH¢20, 000.00 awarded in favour of Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally.    
           [SGD]           MRS. AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH               JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  aey/…   