``I recommended termination of contract``…Tigo man confesses in court

The Former Acting Head of Sales and Distribution of Millicom Ghana Limited, operators of TIGO mobile services, Mr. Nagua Cajetan has indicated that he personally recommended the termination of a contract entered into between the mobile telecommunication company and Mr. Anthony Amegashie, one of its dealers.

According to Mr. Cajetan, who was flown from Rwanda, where he is working as Sales and Distribution Specialist for Tigo Rwanda S.A., the mother company of Millicom Ghana Limited, the decision was necessary in salvaging the existence of the company.

Mr. Cajetan was yesterday giving evidence before the an Accra High Court (Commercial Division) in cross-examination conducted by counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr. Egbert Faibille in a Multi-Million Ghana Cedis legal suit against Millicom Ghana Limited by one of its dealers for unlawful termination of dealership contract.

The witness, who did not show any sign of remorse to the action he then took, told the court, presided over by Justice (Mrs.) Margaret Insaidoo Welbourne that the decision, followed a tour to identify dealers who were selling their products outside the territories assigned them.

Mr. Cajetan further noted that during his checks, he realized that 92% of total Tigo branded recharge cards and e-voucher purchased by the plaintiffs were sold outside the assigned territories assigned to the plaintiffs.

Mr. Anthony Amegashie, who is the director of Mobile Telecom and Express Telecom, both former distributors and printers of recharge vouchers and products of Millicom Ghana Limited, is claiming a declaration of 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 governing 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.

According to Mr. Cajetan, who indicated that there was no written report in respect of his general tour, asserted that within the territories of the plaintiffs, he could not find any of the products even though the plaintiffs were purchasing a huge number of products from Millicom Ghana Limited.

Witness was further noted that the research conducted was only based on the period between December 24, 2007 and January 2008, whereas the agreement run from November 1, 2007 to January 15, 2009, adding that the e-vouchers printed by the plaintiffs was in agreement with Millicom Ghana Limited.

Mr. Cajetan was of the view that no disclaimer had been placed on the vouchers stressing that anybody could purchase the product and load it anywhere as it becomes revenue to Millicom Ghana Limited. Witness also indicated that people could buy recharge vouchers from plaintiffs' territory assigned being Tema and the Volta Region and load in other territories outside the scope of the plaintiffs.

Mr. Cajetan, who failed to provided the total figure of recharge vouchers that for his 92% calculation of products sold outside the territories of the plaintiffs told that court that if plaintiffs bring back the range of e-pins that fell within the duplicated range, Tigo is obliged to reimburse the plaintiff.

Witness was of the view that the unilateral termination of contract by Tigo was lawful and reasonable since the contract agreement signed allows Millicom Ghana Limited to terminate in case of cross territory adding that he compelled by the company code in that manner to salvage the company. According to Mr. Cajetan, pieces of evidences provided by the defendant company were reliable and authentic as physical checks had been conducted to prove the assertion.

Plaintiffs are furthermore 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 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.