ENGINEERING SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD vs. GHANA CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY AND GILAT SATELLITE NETWORKS LTD [2007]DLSC6164

ENGINEERING SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD vs. GHANA CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY AND GILA... [2007]DLSC6164

Date	2007-05-11
Suit No.	CRIMINAL MOTION NO. 2/98
Citation No.	[2007]DLSC6164

QUAYE J.A. [PRESIDING] DOTSE J.A.

OSAFO SAMPONG J.A.

MR. ERIC ATIEKU FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.

MRS. EMMA ASIEDU FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

MR. CHARLES PUOZUING FOR 2ND DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2007]DLSC6164
																																						<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" >ENGINEERING
SYSTEMS &amp; SERVICES LTD <o:p></o:p>(PLT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA CIVIL AVIATION
AUTHORITY AND GILAT SATELLITE NETWORKS LTD <o:p></o:p>(1ST
AND 2ND DEFT/APPLT)<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">

[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CRIMINAL MOTION NO. 2/98&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 11TH MAY, 2007<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. ERIC ATIEKU FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>MRS. EMMA ASIEDU
FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/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.
CHARLES PUOZUING FOR 2ND DEFENDANT/APPELLANT <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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">QUAYE
J.A. [PRESIDING] DOTSE J.A., OSAFO SAMPONG J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:
none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>QUAYE, J.A. <o:p></o:p>Upon
the pleadings, the Plaintiff/Respondent, is a limited liability company which
was registered under the laws of Ghana to, inter alia, provide communications
network design, construction, integration and consultancy services. <o:p></o:p>The
1st Defendant, is the Authority in Ghana that is responsible for the management
of airports and the regulation of civilian air and flight activities covering
Ghana, Togo, and Benin. The 2nd Defendant is an Israeli registered company that
manufactures and deals in Satellite equipment. In or about October, 2002, the
1st defendant invited certain companies, including the Plaintiff/Respondent and
the 2nd defendant, to submit bids by way of tender, for the execution of Very
Small Aperture Terminals [VSAT] Network that the 1st Defendant/Appellant
intended to build in the West African sub-region. By an agreement that was
reached between the Plaintiff/Respondent and the 2nd defendant, the two
companies prepared and presented a joint bid to the 1st Defendant/Appellant,
and the latter, after the necessary procedures had been satisfied, declared the
joint bid that was submitted by the Plaintiff/Respondent and the 2nd Defendant
the winner. Post winning negotiations followed. These initially involved the
respondent and the 2nd defendant as winner of the bid, and the appellant. In
the course of the negotiations however, the defendants side-lined and
eventually ousted the respondent. In the final analysis therefore, the contract
to execute the works was signed between the appellant and the 2nd defendant, to
the exclusion of the respondent in spite of protestations from the latter. The
above facts formed the basis upon which the respondent decided a cause of
action had arisen in their favour, and therefore sued the two defendants as a
means of protecting the respondent company's interests. In the action, the
respondents sued for: <o:p></o:p>[i]
a declaration that the tender for the construction of a VSAT Network put up by
the 1st defendant sometime in October, 2002 and for which the plaintiff bid
jointly with the 2nd defendant was won jointly by the plaintiff and the 2nd
defendant. <o:p></o:p>[ii]
a declaration that the purported award of the contract to the 2nd defendant
alone by the 1st defendant for the execution of the VSAT project jointly bid
for and won by the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant is null and void and of no
legal effect. <o:p></o:p>[iii]
an order directing the 1st defendant to award the contract for the execution of
the VSAT project jointly to the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. <o:p></o:p>[iv]
punitive and aggravated damages for fraud. <o:p></o:p>[v]
an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant, its agents,
assigns and whosoever claims rightfully under it from awarding the contract for
the execution of the VSAT to the 2nd defendant or any other party or parties. <o:p></o:p>[vi]
an order directing the 2nd defendant to pay the plaintiff for solely preparing
the bid and undertaking all administrative and relative activities of the
tender on behalf of the team. <o:p></o:p>[vii]
any other reliefs found due. <o:p></o:</main>