Ivy Benson
25 June 2009
A-MULTI-million Ghana cedis legal suit has been issued against Millicom Ghana Limited, operators of TIGO mobile services by two of its distributors over what is termed bad business practices on the part of the mobile telecommunication company, which had led to the termination of an agreement signed by the parties.
The plaintiffs, Mobile Telecom and Express Telecom, both distributors and printers of recharge vouchers and products of the mobile telecommunication service provider, claim they have illegally been jostled from an agreement signed within two years.
Additionally, plaintiffs asserted that Defendant Company had introduced some Lebanese into the business activities and virtually kicked out the Ghanaian companies from the business, as well as duplicating recharge card pins already allocated to them.
Plaintiffs are therefore claiming a declaration from the court that the termination of the agreement between Express Telecom and Millicom Ghana Limited in the year 2008 is unlawful.
According to plaintiffs, the defendant terminated the agreement unilaterally, without recourse to the regulations government the agreement, noting that the actions of Millicom Ghana Limited was unconscionable and inequitable.
As a result of the unilateral termination of the agreement, plaintiffs said it had suffered great loss by ways of operational cost already instituted prior to defendant's actions.
Furthermore, plaintiffs are seeking damages for the unlawful termination of the agreement signed, as well as an order for the recovery of a total sum of GH¢155,589.00 from defendants, being the cost incurred in purchasing operational equipment, renting of new office premises for the printing of defendant's e-pin vouchers, three months salary to five printing staff of the 2nd plaintiff in lieu of notice of terminating their appointments, stock of branded Tigo vouchers printed for sale on behalf of defendant's company and sums of monies reimbursed to customers for duplicated pins of the defendants that could not be utilized.
Plaintiffs are also claiming anticipated commission losses due Express Telecom in the sum of GH¢400,000.00 a month till the final determination of the case, an amount of GH¢4,500.00 being interest charges that 2nd plaintiff had to pay for a loan of GH¢188,535.00 taken from its bankers together with the sum of GH¢1,430.00, being 1% of the total purchases made by the 2nd plaintiff from the defendant company on January 15, 2008.
In its statement of claim, plaintiffs noted that Mobile Telecom, being the 1st plaintiff, commenced business with the defendants since the year 2003 with a yearly renewal of business agreement.
Plaintiffs noted that in 2005, Mobile Telecom was approached by the then Sales Director of Defendant Company requesting it to investigate and procure the relevant vouchers for sale on its behalf, to help expand defendant's network.
Based on this communication, plaintiffs pointed out that a representative of Mobile telecom traveled to the United Kingdom at the company's expense and obtained the appropriate technology for printing recharge vouchers according to the defendant's company's specification.
It was the case of Mobile Telecom that it began printing, secured e-pin vouchers of the defendant's company, effective from February 2007, and bearing the entire cost of papers, printers and trained personnel at its cost, after it procured printer and generic computers for the operation, at a total cost of GH¢39,369.00, a rented premises at the cost of GH¢4,800.00 to secure the printing of defendant's e- vouchers and a customized pin mailer computer software costing GH¢21,000.00.
Plaintiffs noted that in July 2007, the defendant company informed all dealers in their products of their intention to introduce a new marketing system, where existing dealers would be placed into territories within the country. This resulted in the 1st plaintiff mapping out an acceptable business plan for the defendant company.
Subsequently, Mobile Telecom incorporated Express Telecom on the advice of the defendant company and allocated Greater Accra Region, Western Region, Volta Region and Tema as its territories for the exclusive sale of defendant's products.
As a result of the creation of a new office located at Tema, plaintiffs noted that office equipments and personnel were transferred there, in addition to a branding of the office with Tigo insignia, logo and other marketing materials which costGH¢31,000.00.
Plaintiffs were of the view that the restrictions given them by the defendant company to deal exclusively in their products were not given to the Lebanese companies, who were also introduces into the business as they had the freedom to sell other products from other competing mobile telecommunication networks in the country.
According to plaintiffs, territories allocated to the 1st plaintiff were then transferred to a Lebanese company, resulting in allocating a large territory to it, while the territory for Mobile Telecom was reduced.
Plaintiffs noted that it received a letter from Defendant Company on December 18, 2007, informing dealers that it will with hold 1% of purchases of its products if 10% of a dealer's product is found in another dealer's territory adding that the defendant company further warn that if a dealer's e-pin voucher is found in another territory, the agreement will be terminated.
Plaintiffs further pointed out that it contacted other dealers and proposed to the defendant company to rescind its decision since it would be difficult to determine such actions adding that an amount of GH¢185,535.00 it paid on January 7, 2008 into defendant company's bank account for the supply of recharge card were not supplied.
Plaintiffs subsequently noted that it received a letter on January 15, 2008 from the defendant terminating the agreement between the parties after the 2nd plaintiff had made purchase of e-pin and recharge cards from Millicom Ghana Limited.
The amount of money paid into defendant's accounts for the supply of recharge cards were then paid back into plaintiff's account after 41 days, following several demand letters and persistent telephone calls made to officials of Millicom Ghana Limited, plaintiff asserted, noting that it had to pay GH¢4,500.00 to its bankers from where it raised a loan from to purchase the products.
It is the contention of plaintiff that in December 2007, when 1st plaintiff purchased e-pin vouchers from the defendant company, it turned out latter that the numbers that were sold to it had been resold to another dealer, Messrs Supper Phone, thereby creating a duplication in the system, making it impossible for its customers to utilized products bought from Mobile Telecom.
The amount of GH¢12,740.00 involved in the duplication of the e-pin vouchers claimed by the plaintiff was not reimbursed as plaintiff anticipated a loss of GH¢400,000.00 a month resulting from the termination of the agreement.
Meanwhile, Millicom Ghana Limited had denied all the assertions made by the plaintiffs, noting that the plaintiff suffered all the alleged losses as a result of the actions of the 2nd plaintiff of territorial invasion in default of the agreement.
According to the defendant, it had received several information about territorial invasions on the part of the 2nd plaintiff, breaching the dictates of the agreement signed, stressing that it could not be held liable for their losses.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 Ghanaian Chronicle. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
