DANIELLI CONSTRUCTION LTD vs. MABEY & JOHNSON LTD. [2006]DLSC2420

Date	2006-12-20
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO.J4/14/2006
Citation No.	[2006]DLSC2420

ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

MRS. WOOD J.S.C

BROBBEY J.S.C

ANSAH J.S.C

ANINAKWAH J.S.C.

MR. D. K. LETSA FOR APPELLANT

MR. T. N. WARD BREW FOR RESPONDENT

[2006]DLSC2420
																																						<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" >DANIELLI CONSTRUCTION LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MABEY &amp; JOHNSON LTD.<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
MOTION NO.J4/14/2006<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: 20TH DECEMBER 2006.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;MR. D. K. LETSA FOR 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">

MR.
T. N. WARD BREW FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

ATUGUBA,
J.S.C. (PRESIDING), MRS.&nbsp; WOOD, J.S.C.,
BROBBEY, J.S.C., ANSAH,&nbsp; J.S.C.,
ANINAKWAH, J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;ANSAH,
J.S.C.:&nbsp; The plaintiff sued the defendant for
the following remedies:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
“(1)&nbsp; The return of its piling
hammer and accompanying accessories;<o:p></o:p>(2)&nbsp;&nbsp; Payment of accrued charges for hiring the said hammer;<o:p></o:p>(3)&nbsp;&nbsp; Damages for breach of contract;<o:p></o:p>(4)&nbsp;&nbsp; Damages for wrongful detention of the hammer;<o:p></o:p>(5)&nbsp;&nbsp; Damages for failing to pay for using the hammer;<o:p></o:p>(6)&nbsp;&nbsp; Damages for wrongfully to return the hammer (sic);<o:p></o:p>(7)&nbsp;&nbsp; Massive profit and interest”;<o:p></o:p>The gist of the case for the plaintiff
was that it agreed to give its piling hammer and an Audi saloon car in exchange
of the defendant’s Toyota Hilux pick-up and crushing machine.&nbsp; Whereas it
honoured its obligation and delivered the equipment to the defendant, the
latter failed to deliver the crushing machine to the plaintiff. The plaintiff
thereafter wrote to levy charges for the use of the piling hammer.<o:p></o:p>On the other hand, the defendant denied
there was any agreement to hire the equipment and asserted it was only an
agreement to swap them for each other. The defendant therefore denied liability
and rejected invoices the plaintiff submitted for payment, for the reason that
it made the piling hammer available for collection by the plaintiff, but it <o:p></o:p>The trial judge found in his judgment
there was a contract of hiring equipment by the parties which, the defendant
breached and proceeded to award damages for the plaintiff.&nbsp; He also
ordered the defendant to deliver the piling hammer to the plaintiff at its premises
or pay for the cost of the plaintiff retrieving it itself, awarded $300.00 (or
its equivalent) per day chargeable from 18th December 1993 to date
of judgment as damages, which sum was to attract interest.<o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied with this judgment, the
defendant appealed against it to the Court of Appeal on as many as nine
grounds.&nbsp; The Court allowed the appeal in part and awarded damages for the
cedi equivalent of $890,411 for the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>Once again, the defendant felt
aggrieved by the judgment of the Cour</main>