GOIL pursues Torgbui Sri III - Reaction from Francis Nyonyo Agboada We have noticed with concern the attempts by Ghana Oil Company to use the private media to wage a campaign of vilification against Mr. Francis Nyonyo Agboada. On the 22nd day of November 2006 the Chronicle newspaper published among other things a story to the effect that the said Mr. Nyonyo is indebted to the state owned oil company to the tune of ¢164 million including interest. We wish to place it on record that Goil instituted legal action as far back as 7-8-2000 (Appendix A) to recover the sum of ¢65,730,334.58 being the balance of the purchase of petroleum products sold and delivered to Fraga Limited. Fraga Limited entered conditional appearance(Appendix B) and filed a motion to set aside the writ on the grounds that it did not owe Goil any amount rather it was Goil who was indebted to Fraga limited to the tune of ¢10,421,930.00(Appendix C) . Goil failed to respond to the motion but rather filed a notice of discontinuance (Appendix D) and thereafter the court presided over by Mrs Agnes Dordzie awarded costs of 5,000,000.00 against Goil (Appendix E). Goil promptly paid the said amount (Appendix F). Fraga Limited caused its lawyers to write to Goil demanding the amount of ¢10,421,930.00 (Appendix G) but Goil failed to respond to the letter thereupon Fraga Limited instituted legal action to recover the said amount on 10-1-2002 (Appendix H). Goil who were represented by S.Y. Gyabeng entered appearance (Appendix I) and filed their defence and admitted that they owed F¢2,763,670.00 and not ¢10,421,930.00 (Appendix J). Judgment was subsequently given on the admitted amount plus interest which put the total amount due to Fraga Limited to 6,149,299.00(Appendix K). Indeed Goil paid these entire amounts promptly fearing that the Lawyers of Fraga limited were going to levy execution against it. We find it therefore most disgraceful for the same Goil company which was represented in the said suit before Mrs. Agnes Dordzie by its solicitor Mr. Gyaben and who now happens to be source of the false story that Goil should come out 6 years later to peddle blatant falsehood in the media in order to mask the financial mismanagement that it found itself in. Mr. S.Y. Gyaben’s comments and his frustrations about losing that suit should be directed at his own staff who had mismanaged Goil over the years. His comments are to say the least hypocritical because as said earlier on, he personally represented Goil in the said suit that his company was involved in and lost miserably. One wonders whether his attitude and utterances are excuses for losing the case. We are of the view that any person or entity that pursues a claim in Court and loses knows the avenues open to it if it is dissatisfied with a judgment. Resort to such false publication is definitely not one of them. Mr. S.Y.Gyabeng‘s attitude of resorting to the media as a substitute for the Appeals Court is unethical and unprofessional. As regards the alleged numerous discussions Mr. Gyaben claimed the company had with Mr. Nyonyo, we wish to place it on record that this is absolutely false. Did all these discussions take place before or after court of competent jurisdiction had adjudicated on the matter in favour of Mr. Nyonyo? It sounds strange in the particular circumstances of this case that the victorious party in the suit would go back to the loser to discuss it how it will pay a debt which has been found to be non existent and more particularly when the loser was rather declared by the court as owing the victorious party. How strange? Additionally, Mr. Gyaben conveniently failed to inform your reporter about the fact that after losing the action in the High Court, Goil decided to pursue the matter at the Police station and when this development was brought to the attention of the Court then presided over by the late Ebiasah J he, in the discharge of his constitutional duty of protecting the legal rights of Mr. Nyonyo, gave an order restraining Goil from harassing him. Indeed a report at the A.G’s department also goes to prove the innocence of Mr. Nyonyo. Finally we are not in the least surprised that Goil has referred the matter to Mr. Chris Ackumey who himself, Raymond Okudzeto and other faceless persons are pursuing various legal and media agenda against Mr. Nyonyo. We are eagerly waiting for Mr. Ackumey‘s writ of summons. To foreclose all the false publications on Fraga Oil, the papers particularly Chronicle was indulging in as agent of Goil and some faceless people there is the need to go into the ramification of the law pertaining thereto appearing hereinafter. Mr. Nyonyo Agboada Managing Director of Fraga Oil reached some rapprochement with Goil for the supply of oil for his company Fraga Limited. In pursuant of that agreement he issued cheques to Goil which were to be presented whenever he collected oil from Goil. This agreement had been pursued for sometime without hitch. It therefore means that the cheques will become due for payments whenever by his collection of the oil consideration for payment of the oil collected becomes due. In other words there should be a gain by the person who issued the cheques thus leading to accrual of consideration. In which case, the payment of the consideration will be deemed to have become due. In such a situation if the cheque is presented and it is dishonoured, it can be properly and certainly said that the issuer of the cheques has committed a criminal offence i.e. intended to defraud by false pretences. Nevertheless if the issuer of the cheques did not gain anything the consideration would not have accrued and the cheques are therefore not due for presentation since no payments was due. If the cheques are however presented when no gain has been made therefore there is no consideration payable meaning no payment is due. The cheques presented in this circumstances when dishonoured, no offence has been committed. Goil presented the cheques contrary to the agreement reached at the time when the issuer had not collected any oil therefore has not made any gain which could gave rise to consideration due for settlement. The dishonouring of the cheque is therefore not a criminal offence for Goil and Chronicle to make a heavy weather in their publications. This is simply malicious publication and totally defamatory. See the case of Seidu v Republic (1976) 2 GLR 288 and other attachment hereunder indicating decision of the court on the matter highlighting the innocence of the issuer. See also the decision of the Attorney – General on the issue following investigations carried out by the Police to determine the issue (Appendix K). FOR: HAYIBOR, DJARBENG & CO SOLICITORS FOR FRANCIS NYONYO