TRAPEQ LIMITED vs. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI (GH.) LTD. [2012]DLCA8628

Date	2012-06-07
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/188/2011
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA8628

KANYOKE J.A. (PRESIDING)

OFOE J.A.

DANQUAH J.A.

MR. WILLIAM ADOTEI ADDO FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

MR. VICTOR ANKU TSEDEY FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2012]DLCA8628
																																						<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" >TRAPEQ LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/
APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI (GH.) LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. H1/188/2011&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 7TH
JUNE, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. WILLIAM ADOTEI ADDO FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.&nbsp; VICTOR ANKU TSEDEY FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

KANYOKE J.A. (PRESIDING), OFOE J.A., DANQUAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

JUDGMENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>KANYOKE, J.A.&nbsp; The issue for determination in this appeal is a simple
and straight forward one, namely whether the trial judge exercised her
discretion properly in awarding a claim for quantum meruit on the facts of the
case in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.&nbsp;
For ease of reference and brevity I shall in this judgment maintain the
status or description of the parties at the court below, to wit plaintiff and
defendant respectively.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts of this case
culminating in the appeal herein are as follows:&nbsp; The plaintiff is a haulage company engaged in
the business of haulage of ore and waste whilst the defendant company is a
mining company.&nbsp; The relationship between
the plaintiff company and the defendant company had existed for several years
and the last contract between them, Contract No. C2175, tendered in evidence as
Exhibit A, commenced on 26th August 2006 and expired in August
2007.&nbsp; After the expiration of C2175, the
plaintiff with the consent and approval of the defendant, continued to provide
haulage services to the defendant, at the rate stipulated in C2175 whilst they
attempted to negotiate a new rate for the payment of those services. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After a period of more than
one year when the parties could not come to an agreement on the new rate the
defendant terminated the relationship, prompting the plaintiff to request
payment for the difference between what had been paid to it based on the old
rate in the expired Contract No. C2175 and what the plaintiff considered to be
a reasonable and fair compensation for the services it provided the defendant
during the period.&nbsp; The defendant refused
to pay prompting the plaintiff to sue the defendant seeking the following
reliefs:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“a&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The payment of eight hundred and thirty-five thousand,
nineteen Dollars (US$835,019.00) its equivalent in cedis being an amount owing
to plaintiff by defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>b&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest on the said sum at the prevailing bank rate from
September 2007 till the date of final payment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>c&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cost.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the close of pleadings,
the issues agreed and set down for trial and determination were:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the rates which the defendant was paying the plaintiff
after the expiration of the contract C2175 were fair, reasonable and consistent
with what other rival haulage contractors were being paid by the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the plaintiff’s call for an upward review of
the rat</main>