DEALERS SUE SHELL GHANA

SEVENTEEN Shell Ghana Limited dealers have sued the company at an Accra Fast Track High Court, seeking an order to annul the termination of their dealership agreement.
The company terminated the dealership agreement with the dealers who operate in Accra and Kumasi with effect from December 31, 2007, but, according to the dealers, it was null, void, inequitable and unconscionable because they were not given reasonable notices.
Consequently, they are seeking an order of perpetual injunction to restrain Shell or anybody claiming authority through the company from unlawfully interfering with their business.
They are further seeking an order to set aside the purported notice of termination or intention not to renew their dealership on the grounds that the notices were unreasonably short, unconscionable, unfair and unlawful.
The court could not hear the motion for injunction last Friday because of procedural problems and, therefore, awarded costs of GH¢200 against Shell and adjourned the matter to Thursday, January 24, 2008.
An affidavit deposed on behalf of the plaintiffs by Godfrey Motey Addo of Accra said the dealers had worked for Shell variously for periods ranging between one and 30 years and that the last dealership agreement executed between them and Shell was in 2005, which expired in December of that year.
According to them, they had been operating their respective dealerships without any formal agreement. However, by a letter dated October 8, 2007 and addressed to them, Shell indicated that it would not renew the 2005 agreement.
The plaintiffs said Shell requested them to apply to be considered for engagement under a “new operator platform” from January 2008 but they could not apply.
They said the nature and requirements of Shell’s business compelled them to rely on loans from their banks to enable them to execute the dealership agreement for the benefit of the company.
“We have committed ourselves to repay the said loans to our respective bankers which cannot be paid if reasonable notice of termination of the dealership agreement is not given,” the plaintiffs said.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs said that they had entered into agreements with their creditors and if the dealership agreement was terminated without incurring liabilities such as the payment of damages, reasonable notice was required by them for the termination of their dealership.
They said that they would incur heavy losses resulting from their inability to dispose of the non-Shell products within the short time that the notice was given and, therefore, the defendant should be restrained, since the company would not suffer any hardship or inconvenience.