DESHINA BUILDING WORKS LTD. vs. BUAH) [1979]DLHC1056

Date	1979-06-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1056

ANSAH-TWUM J.

FORSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

DAWSON FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1979]DLHC1056
																																						<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" >DESHINA BUILDING WORKS LTD. <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BUAH)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 390<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:
28 JUNE 1979<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">

FORSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

ANSAH-TWUM J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANSAH-TWUM J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for the sum of ¢28,021 which is set
out as follows:<o:p></o:p>“(a)
¢18,000 being the balance or damages or both due on a building contract between
themselves and the defendant and which the defendant unilaterally terminated;
and, <o:p></o:p>(b) The
sum of ¢10,021 being the cost of building materials belonging to the plaintiff
company and which the defendant collected from the site of operations at the
time he terminated the contract.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
pleading, the defendant denied liability and pleaded further that the original
contract price was ¢100,000 but was later on mutually varied upwards to
¢120,000 because of a rise in prices of materials at the time, and he paid
thereon a total of ¢102,000. The defendant continued in paragraphs (4), (5) and
(6) of his statement of defence:<o:p></o:p>“(4) The
defendant says that for no apparent reason the plaintiffs thereafter abandoned
work on the defendant’s building and in spite of the defendant’s protestations
the plaintiffs failed to continue. <o:p></o:p>(5) The
defendant further says that at the time the plaintiffs abandoned the project it
was incomplete and haphazard. (6) In desperation the defendant turned to
Messrs. Ahey Ltd. who agreed to complete the work at an additional cost of
¢135,000.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs joined issue in their reply with the defendant on his defence
generally and admitted that the original contract price was eventually varied
upwards to ¢120,000 because of additional jobs they were to carry out on the
building. The plaintiffs did specifically deny paragraphs (4) and (5) of the
statement of defence to the effect that they did themselves abandon work on the
defendant’s building. The most important issues which were thus set out for
trial are:<o:p></o:p>“(b)
Whether the plaintiffs abandoned the building operations for the defendant for
no good cause. (c) Whether or not the materials collected by the defendant are
for the plaintiffs. (d) Whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to the
relief sought.”<o:p></o:p>The
defendant also counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract against the
plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs were represented in this action by David Eshun, who signed himself
as the managing director of the plaintiff-company on the written contracts and
other relevant documents tendered in evidence in this matter. The plaintiffs’
evidence is that they entered into a building contract with the defendant to
construct, originally, a two-storey building for the defendant at Takoradi. The
original contract, evidenced by exhibit A, was concluded on 20 June 1975 and
construction of the building commenced thereafter. The plaintiffs and the
defendant entered into another agreement on 3 May 1976 by which the plaintiffs
were to construct a third floor to the building they were constructing for the
defendant, making it a three-storey building. This second agreement is
evidenced by exhibit B dated 3 May 1976. The original total cost of
construction as per both exhibits A and B was ¢90,000 but as pleaded by both
parties, this was increased to ¢120,000 and the defendant paid a total of ¢102,000
by instalments.<o</main>