SOWAH vs. BANK FOR HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION AND ANOTHER [1983]DLSC2177

Date	1983-07-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1983]DLSC2177

APALOO CJ.

ADADE JSC

TAYLOR J.S.C

FRANCOIS JA

EDWARD WIREDU JA

NARTEY (FOR GBEHO) FOR THE APPELLANT.

VON-FLEISCHER FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1983]DLSC2177
																																						<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" >SOWAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BANK FOR HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 1324<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:
21 JULY 1983<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">

NARTEY (FOR GBEHO) FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

VON-FLEISCHER FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

APALOO CJ., ADADE AND TAYLOR JJ.S.C., FRANCOIS
AND EDWARD WIREDU JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>I agree
with the judgment to be read by my brother Taylor J.S.C. that the appeal should
be allowed and have nothing to add.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.S.C<o:p></o:p>By his
writ, the plaintiff-appellant instituted an action on 30 April 1976 at the High
Court against the first and second defendants-respondents jointly and severally
for:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">&nbsp;“(a)
¢11,717 being the cost of work he claimed to have completed under a building
contract dated 8 November 1974 and 3 May 1975 as varied by the second
defendant, the owner of the building.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b)
¢12,173 being extra work constructed outside the contracts at the request of
the first defendant.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(ii)
Wages for day and night watchman at ¢150 per month from 1 October 1975 to 30
June 1977 and ¢250 per month from 1 July 1977 to date of judgment. (c) Damages
for breach of contract.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
second defendant set up in defence a counterclaim of ¢2,366 and at the High
Court, the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants were dismissed and
judgment was given against him in favour of the second defendant for his
counterclaim of ¢2,366: see Sowah v. Bank for Housing and Tete [1979] G.L.R.
144. The plaintiff’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was equally dismissed
although an adjustment was made in regard to the counterclaim which was then
reduced to ¢151 and judgment was entered in favour of the second defendant for
this sum.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In order
to appreciate the plaintiff’s claims and decide the matters in controversy
between all the parties to this appeal, it is necessary to examine the nature
of the relevant contractual obligations which all the parties undertook towards
each other, the manner in which each party fulfilled or failed to fulfil his
part of the bargain and the legal consequences which must of necessity follow
from the course of conduct pursued by each party.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff, Mr. Sowah, hereinafter referred to in this judgment as the contract
or, entered into a contract under seal on 8 November 1974 with the second
defendant, Mr. Nai Tete, as owner to put up a building for him at a cost of
¢12,400. The terms of the contract, very germane in this appeal, are clauses
1(a), 1(b) and the default provisions in clauses 3 and 4. Under 1(a) the owner,
Nai Tete, granted the contractor the right to enter his land “for the purpose
of constructing thereon the aforesaid building together with the drainage and
including fence according to the specification approved in the plan attached
hereto.” Under clause 1(b):<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“ . . .
the contractor shall provide all necessary building materials, labour and
supervision and shall proceed with all due diligence to build and complete the
said dwelling house together with the drainage and shall apply for and obtain
the relevant certificate of fitness for huma</main>