Banjak Frozen Food Dragged To Court – For US$467K Unpaid Debt By: Yassah J Wright

The Ms Global Company based in Manama Kingdom of Bahrain has filed a lawsuit against Banjak Frozen Food at the Commercial Court in Monrovia, over a disputed US$ 467, 013.50, for frozen chicken feet which Banjak has reportedly refused to settle its obligation.

The defendant is said to be liable to plaintiff in the aggregate amount of US$ 467,0113.50 plus legal interest of six percent (6%) annum there on. The defendant is liable for cost of these proceedings: and Grant unto plaintiff any other and further relief as your honor may deem just, legal and equitable in the premises, lawsuit filed behalf of its Ms Global Company by its Attorney In-Fact counsel Albert S. Sims.

According to the court documents, between February2024and up to August, 2024 plaintiff supplied Defendant frozen food commodities; specifically, chicken upper backs, chicken carcasses, and fish in varying quantities and at varying prices.

The lawsuit further argue that the state, the commercial and business relationship between the Defendant and Plaintiff was cordial and marked by what appeared to be a demonstrated commitment on the part of Defendant to live up to the terms of its contracts with Plaintiff by making timely payments for commodities supplied, as evidenced by the prompt discharge, by Defendant, of its obligations arising out of or in connection with the first two consignments of commodities supplied equal to a total of 48 tons valued atUS$66,340.00.

 Regrettably, however, the suit payment for subsequent frozen food commodities supplied Defendant by Plaintiff were disappointingly not met with the same promptitude with which Defendant had settled Plaintiff’s previous invoices for the first two (2)consignments of the commodities such that as at the time of the filing of this Action.

Plaintiff’s exposure to Defendant or alternatively stated, Defendant’s obligation to Plaintiff stands at US $467,013.50 decomposed hereunder.

Plaintiff also says that on March 19, 2024 (19.03.2024), Plaintiff issued Defendant its Proforma Invoice No. 3297yr2024 for the supply of five (5) containers or total of 135,000 kg of frozen chicken feet at the aggregate cost of US$118,800.00 with payment term stated thereon as “100% Payment transfer 30 days from Exact Date of Arrival (ETA) at the Port of Monrovia”.

That on March 25, 2024 (25.03.2024), Defendant reverted to Plaintiff with its acceptance of the terms of said Proforma Invoice by signing and affixing its stamp/seal thereon.

“The same March 19, 2024 (19.03.2024), Plaintiff issued Defendant its Contract cum Sales Order No. 3297yr2024, containing the terms stated in the confirmed Proforma Invoice, same being, inter alia, for Plaintiff to deliver to Defendant 135,000 kg of chicken feet loaded in five (5) containers at the total cost of US$118,800.00, payable within 30 days from the Exact Date of Arrival (ETA) at the Freeport of Monrovia.”

March 25, 2024 (25.03.2024), Defendant reverted to Plaintiff with its acceptance of the Contract/Sales Order by signing and affixing its stamp/seal thereon.

Three (3) of the original five (5) containers referred to in Sub-Count 6(i) above were cancelled by Defendant and therefore only two (2) containers were delivered to Defendant bearing Container Nos. CGMU5443020 andTRIU8693964, and for and in respect of said two (2) containers, Bill of Lading SSZ1451765 was issued by the carrier.

Because of the cancellation of three of the original five containers, thus leaving only two (2), on April 25, 2024, Plaintiff issued its actual Commercial Invoice No. 3297-1/2yr2024 for the two (2) containers of the commodities in the amount of US$47,520.00.

On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff issued a Credit Note, same being Invoice 12yr2024 in favor of Defendant for the amount of US$345.00 occasioned by correction of Invoice No. 3297yr2024 as indicated thereon.

That on August 9, 2024, Plaintiff issued Commercial Invoice 19yr2024, to reckon late payment penalty computed in line with the terms of contract/Sales Order 3297yr2024 in the amount of US$2,358.50.

That Plaintiff reiterates and says that the fresh frozen commodities sold ,supplied, and delivered to Defendant during the relevant periods indicated in Cons Six(6) through Eleven (11) above was on a thirty (30)-day credit basis, but as amply rated, Defendant, failed, refused, and neglected to settle its invoices over the selfsame relevant with the effect.

That as at the time of the filing of this Action Defendant’s indebtedness to Plaintiff stands at US$467,013.50 (United States Dollars Four Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand Thirteen 50/100)

This discharge its indebtedness to Plaintiff as per and in keeping with the terms of the credit ca

Parenthetically, Plaintiff says that notwithstanding Defendant’s that all invoices were to be settled within thirty (30) days following the Except Time of Arrival (ETA) of each consignment at the Port of Monrovia, Plaintiff, based on its immediate past positive experience with Defendant, on the one hand, and not suspecting or having any reason to suspect that Defendant had purposed not to honor any of Plaintiffs subsequent invoices, continued to supply Defendant based on Defendant’s repeated promises and assurances.

Plaintiff says that Defendant’s subterfuge to defeat and/or frustrate Plaintiff efforts aimed at recovering its exposure to Plaintiff became evident when Defendant’s authorized representatives with whom Plaintiff had interacted, in the persons of Messrs.

Hussein Fouad and Mohammed Sweidan, began refusing to answer and/or return calls from plaintiff’s representatives.

Not only had Defendant rebuffed Plaintiff’s recovery effort, but its authorized representatives named herein had assumed a rather bellicose and/or toxic disposition which led to Plaintiff’s sad conclusion that Defendant will not settle its just obligation absent litigation.

Prosecution says that it, having reached the conclusion to wit: that litigation is the only option available to compel Defendant to settle its obligation dispatched its Export Manager, Ms. Samira El Bahlili, to Liberia in a last-ditch effort to persuade Defendant to settle its indebtedness to Plaintiff short of litigation. Plaintiff says that this move proved illusory at best.

Plaintiff says that in light of Defendant’s continued refusal to discharge its(Plaintiff’s) obligation, Plaintiff instructed its said representative to hire the services of a local firm in Liberia to do the legal needful; and hence, the retention of Justice Advocates& Partners, Inc. to file the instant suit.

That thereupon, Plaintiff’s counsel, Justice Advocates & Partners, Inc., by a letter under date of 13th August, 2024, made a formal demand on Defendant to settle its obligation on or before, but no later than August 22, 2024, and/or to attend a conference at plaintiff’s legal counsel’s office on August 16, 2024, in order to discuss and explore possibilities for the settlement, by Defendant, of Plaintiff’s claim short of litigation.

Plaintiff says that even though the said conference was held as scheduled, the outcome was not mutually acceptable. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “P/10” is a copy of the referenced letter from Plaintiff’s legal counsel in substantiation of the averment contained herein.

That in the light of the averments contained in Counts Five (5) through Seventeen (17) above, Plaintiff says that it is constrained to bring the instant Action of Debt against Defendant to compel payment, by Defendant, and recovery, by Plaintiff, of the its outstanding exposure to Defendant in the aggregate amount of US$467,013.50  50/100) plus interest thereon.

WHEREFORE, AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, Plaintiff prays Your Honors to enter Judgment against Defendant, as follows:

Justice Advocates & Partners Inc.