BENDA vs. AWUKU [1978]DLCA1134

Date	1978-07-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1978]DLCA1134

JIAGGE JA

KINGSLEY-NYINAH JA

ANNAN J.A.

S. KWAMI TETTEH FOR THE APPELLANT.

BRODIE-MENDS (AMPONSAH-DADZIE) WITH HIM FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1978]DLCA1134
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >BENDA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>AWUKU<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1979] GLR 320<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
25 JULY 1978<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

S. KWAMI TETTEH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

BRODIE-MENDS (AMPONSAH-DADZIE) WITH HIM FOR THE
RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

JIAGGE, KINGSLEY-NYINAH AND ANNAN JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANNAN J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant-appellant, a building contractor, hereinafter referred to as the
builder, disputes the quantum of damages awarded the plaintiff-respondent, a
building owner, hereinafter referred to as the owner, for breach of a building
contract. By the terms of the contract the builder undertook to carry out
certain specific works in the uncompleted building of the owner mainly for the
purpose of finishing the interior of the building in the manner specified by
the owner. The sum of ¢21,555 was agreed upon as the price for all the works,
details of which were also agreed. The contract was not fully performed by the
contractor. He had received a total of ¢13,780 out of the agreed price by 31
December 1971. The contract was entered into in early 1971. An additional sum
of ¢2,000 was paid to the contractor in 1972.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to the owner the work was to be completed by 31 December 1971. This the
contractor denied. There is no dispute that by that date the work had not been
completed. Between January 1972 and January 1973 the owner was in protective
custody. According to him no work was done during this period.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
failing in his endeavour, after his release, to get the contractor to complete,
the owner engaged a new contractor who commenced work in February 1974 and
completed in June that same year for ¢10,000 which the owner paid.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The owner
claimed, inter alia,<o:p></o:p>(a)
¢23,200 being loss of rent from January 1972 to May 1974 (both months
inclusive), i.e. 29 calendar months at the rate of ¢800 per mensem or in the
alternative the sum of ¢23,200 being the loss of the value of the use of the
said house from January 1972 to May 1974 (both months inclusive), i.e. 29
calendar months at the rate of ¢800 per mensem.<o:p></o:p>(b)
¢12,000 general damages.<o:p></o:p>In his
judgment the trial judge awarded the building owner ¢1,000 general damages “for
the considerable inconvenience caused by the uncomplimentary conduct” of the
building contractor from 1972 to 1974 when the agreement was terminated. He
also awarded him a sum of ¢10,800 for loss of occupation and use of the
building for one and a half years as a fair and just estimate of loss suffered,
based on a figure of ¢600 a month which was derived from the evidence of the
owner that the house could fetch a monthly rent of ¢800. Other awards, not
relevant for the purposes of this appeal, brought the total damages awarded to
¢15,525. Costs of ¢1,500 were awarded to the owner.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
appeal the contractor challenges the legal basis for the awards for loss of use
and occupation, general damages and costs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Loss of
use and occupation:—In his evidence the owner said that before granting the
contract to the builder he told him he wanted first class work as he was
desirous of renting out the house to an embassy or any person who was prepared
to pay a good rent. In October or November 1971 he had engaged the services of
a company of estate agents who had arranged for a tenant at ¢800 a month by 1</main>