Fairlopp int’l wins $10 million judgement: Against TATA, Jaguar, And Land Rover Over Unfair Competition, Manipulating Bidding Process  

The Accra High Court (Commercial Division 4), under the gavel of Justice Afi Agbanu Kudomor (Mrs.), has awarded a cost ten million United States Dollars (USD10, 000,000.00) against Tata Africa Holding Ghana Limited and its parent company, Tata Africa Holdings SA (PTY) Limited, Jaguar Land Rover (South Africa), and Alliance Motors Ghana Limited, after years of gruelling legal battle.

By Nana Kwame Owusu

“This rather egregious and wrongful conduct of the 1st to 4th Defendants is condemned in no uncertain terms by this Court. To serve as a deterrent, this Court is minded to award punitive damages against the 1st to 4th Defendant for Plaintiff. I hereby award punitive damages of Ten Million United States Dollars (USD10, 000,000.00) or its cedi equivalent against 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants for the Plaintiff,” the trial judge stated in the judgment dated 30 January, this year.

The court further awarded cost of one hundred thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC100, 000.00) for Fairlopp International Limited, which was the Plaintiff in the multimillion-dollar case.

Fairlopp International Limited had been in court since 5 December, 2018, with the five companies, which have now turned out to be operating under one brand, claims jointly and severally the following reliefs:

A declaration that at all material times leading to the appointment of the Alliance Motors Ghana Limited (2nd Defendant) as a sole franchise holder to import Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles in Ghana, (Jaguar Land Rover (South Africa (the 1st ) , Tata Africa Holdings SA (PTY) Limited (3rd),  and Tata Africa Holding Ghana Limited (4th Defendants) acted as a single economic unit with intent to defraud the Plaintiff by way of deceit.

Fairlopp prayed the court an order for recovery of the sum of Forty Million, Three Hundred and Ten Thousand. Two Hundred and Forty-Three United States Dollars (S40,310,243.00) being the special damages suffered by the Plaintiff consequent upon the fraudulent conducts of the Defendants.

Again, the former franchise holder for Jaguar car dealership sought from the court declaration that the representations made by the ls Defendant, under the supervision of and with the consent of the 3rd and 4th Defendants, to the Plaintiff in respect of the entire bidding process to select an entity to be sole franchise holder of Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles in Ghana amounts to fraudulent misrepresentation by way of deceit.

Fairlopp also prayed the court for a declaration that the 2nd Defendant was used as a cloak to commit fraud on the Plaintiff by way of fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the 1st Defendant, under the supervision of the 3rd and 4th Defendants and that the damage, loss and injury caused to the Plaintiff leading to the bidding process was due to the said fraudulent misrepresentation by way of deceit, amongst others.

“A declaration that the conduct of the 1s, 3rd and 4th Defendants in appointing the 2nd Defendant amounts to a concerted practice which has the substantial effect of preventing competition in the Ghanaian market of the Jaguar Land Rover branded vehicles and amounts to a collusive conduct to take away the Plaintiff’s business contrary to the Competition Act of South Africa;

1. A declaration that the selection or appointment or election of the 2nd Defendant as the holder of the Jaguar Land Rover franchise without passing through the bidding process as outlined by the 1 Defendant under the direction of the 3rd and 4th Defendant is unlawful,” Fairlop statement in it amended writ to the court.

The Court however held that “…the act and practice of the 1st to 4th Defendant in the course of its dealings with the Plaintiff is contrary to honest practices and constitutes an act or not competition prohibited by the Protection Against Unfair Competition Act, 2000 (ACT 589) of Ghana.”

“The Court hereby declares that the conduct of the 1t 3rd and 4th Defendants in appointing the 2 Defendant amounts to a concerted practice which has the substantial effect of preventing competition in the Ghanaian market of the Jaguar Land Rover branded vehicles, 

The Court hereby declares that the selection or appointment or election of the 2nd Defendant as the holder of the Jaguar Land Rover franchise without passing through the bidding process as outlined by the 1 Defendant as unlawful,” Justice Afi Agbanu Kudomor ruled.

According to the court, the parent company (Tata Motors Limited) can be said to have indirectly participated in its own tendering process for the dual franchise which resulted in 2nd Defendant, another company indirectly owned by Tata Motors Limited winning the bid.

It is thus clear from the above that 1st to 4th Defendants manipulated the bidding process by unfair methods to their advantage: which as discussed earlier amounts to unfair advantage contrary to section 7 of the Protection Against Unfair Competition Act, 2000 (Act 589).