KOBAKU ASSOCIATES vs. OWUSU [2005]DLCA992

Date	2005-03-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2005]DLCA992

ARYEETEY JA

TWENEBOA-KODUAH JA

HEWARD-MILLS J

P C KOBI-FORDAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

DR KWAKU NSIAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2005]DLCA992
																																						<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" ><a name="_gjdgxs"></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">KOBAKU ASSOCIATES<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">OWUSU<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2003-2005]
1 GLR 611<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 21 March 2005<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>P C
KOBI-FORDAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

DR
KWAKU NSIAH FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

ARYEETEY.
TWENEBOA-KODUAH JJA AND HEWARD-MILLS J<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Aryeetey JA.
The plaintiff-appellants are a partnership of chartered architects whose
members are Mr W L Akude, Mr F Kobia-Amanfi and Mr S O Larbi. In October 1997
one of the partners, Kobia-Amanfi met with the defendant, a former managing
director of Kowus Motors at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital. The plaintiffs’
case is that in the course of a conversation that ensued, the defendant who got
to know about the profession of Mr Kobia-Amanfi, who testified at the trial as
the plaintiff, informed him about his plans to have some work done on some of
his landed property. The plaintiff became interested. He told the plaintiff
about his intention to have his workshop and offices at No 16, Ring Road South
Industrial Area, Accra demolished and to build new block of offices in their
place. Since it came to light that the defendant had misplaced his copies of
drawings of the buildings he had submitted to the City Engineer’s Department
for building permit, the plaintiff had to write to the City Engineer’s
Department and later procured certified copies of the drawings from them. Later
the defendant had a change of mind. He would no longer pursue the project at No
16, Ring Road South Industrial Area, Accra. He would rather sell the existing
properties and apply the proceeds to the completion of his East Legon block of
flats.<o:p></o:p>Consequently,
the defendant gave to the plaintiff drawings of the East Legon property which
had been approved by the Department of Town and Country Planning and
commissioned him to re-design and make new drawings, as well as prepare bills
of quantities for tender. It was agreed between the parties that after the
tender and award of contract for the building the plaintiff would provide
normal service by supervising the construction. Since the defendant had lost
the documents on the East Legon property he asked the plaintiff to obtain
copies from the Deeds Registry, which the plaintiff did. The property consisted
of four plots which were registered in the names of the defendant’s children.
Later the plaintiff presented the completed drawings and bills of quantities to
the defendant, which were accepted by him. Subsequently, the plaintiff
discussed the drawings fully with the defendant in the presence of the
defendant’s wife. It was when the defendant asked the plaintiff to put the
project to tender that he was reminded by the plaintiff that the four plots
were in the names of his children and advised him to get his solicitors to
prepare deeds of transfer in favour of himself or his wife if the project were
to be in her name. Meanwhile, upon a request by the defendant, the plaintiff
found for him a valuer by name Mr Solomon Kwame Frempah, the first plaintiff
witness, who was to value some other properties of the defendant. The first
plaintiff witness carried out the assignment and received payment for it. On 31
July 1998 the plaintiff submitted a bill, exhibit H, to the defendant and
demanded payment of ¢143 million inclusive of service tax, being services
rendered by the plaintiff partnership. The defendant promised to settle the
bill after the sale of his Fadama property. He failed to honour his promise.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant on his part denied ever commissioning the plaintiff through their
representative to do any work for him. He never authorised their representative
after they had met as the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital to prepare drawings and
bills of quantities for him and therefore he was not liable to pay for the bill
which was presented by the plaintiff. He caused his solicitors to write to the
plaintiff and request for a copy of the contractual arrangements between them.
He did not however receive a response from the plaintiff in respect of his
request for a copy of the agreement. The letter from the defendant’s solicitor,
exhibit J, is dated 9 July 1999. It was in response to the plaintiff’s demand
for payment for his service charges, exhibit H, which was written a year
earlier. Exhibit J reads:<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:y</main>