ARRITAL GHANA LIMITED vs. ACCRA CITY HOTELS LIMITED [2013]DLCA3181

Date	2013-03-28
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/216/2011
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA3181

KANYOKE J.A.

OFOE J.A.

JOHNSON J.A.

MR. Y. KULENDI FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

MR. J.K. AGYEMANG FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2013]DLCA3181
																																						<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" >ARRITAL
GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ACCRA CITY
HOTELS LIMITED<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/216/2011&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;DATE: 28TH MARCH, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. Y. KULENDI FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<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. J.K. AGYEMANG FOR 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">

KANYOKE J.A., OFOE J.A., JOHNSON J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&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; <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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>OFOE,J.A.:<o:p></o:p>The
grounds of appeal the defendant/ appellant, hereinafter referred to as the
defendant, would want us to consider are as follows:<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">"I. That the judgment is against the
weight of the evidence.<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.That the learned trial judge erred in law
and evidence in holding that the Defendant breached contractual agreement
between the parties.<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">III. That the learned trial judge erred in
law and evidence in awarding damages against the Defendant as a result of the
detention of its tools. The learned trial judge erred in law in denying
thatthat the Defendant had a lien over Plaintiff's tools. V. The learned trial
judge refusal of Defendant counterclaim is against the weight of evidence. VI.
That further grounds of appeat may be filed uponreceipt of a certified copy of
the judgment of the trial court.”<o:p></o:p>These
grounds of appeal have arisen as a result of defendant's dissatisfaction with
the judgment of the trial court's conclusion that it was the defendant who was
in breach of the contract and also granting to the plaintiff Euro 22,089 as
balance due for value of work done, Euro 8,094 as supervision fee, and interest
on these amounts at prevailing bank rate from the 10th of December 2008 up to
date of final payment and a further award of Euro 30,000 as general damages for
unlawful detention of mobile work station, tools and equipment. Cost of GH¢5000
was also awarded against the defendant.<o:p></o:p>The gist
of the case that was put before the trial court simply stated is that the
defendant company wanted a renovation of the kitchen of one of its hotels,
Novotel Hotel. The renovation was to cover masonry, plumbing works, electrical
works, air conditioning and supply and installation of kitchen equipment. For
various reasons contested by the parties the works could not be completed by
the plaintiff leading to termination of the agreement by the defendant with
immediate effect. The letter was dated 10th December 2008. After the
termination the defendant prevented the plaintiff's workers from collecting
their tools from the worksite. It took the intervention of the police to get
the tools released to the plaintiff/respondent hereinafter referred to as the
plaintiff. The plaintiff, unhappy at the termination of the contract and
seizure of its tools sued the defendant claiming per its writ of summons for:<o:p></o:p>"a. An order compelling defendant to pay
forthwith to the plaintiff the sum of Euro 39,589.00 being amount owed by
defendant to plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>b. Damages for unlawful detention of
plaintiff's tools equipment and mobile work from December 10, 2008 to March
9,2009. C. Interest on the said sums in a and b above at the prevailing bank
rate from December 2008 till date of final payment. d. Costs e. Further or
other reliefs”.<o:p></o:p>Defendant believing that the contract was
breached by the plaintiff also counterclaimed 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">“a. €17,512.00 being amount due to Defendant
as stated in paragraph 11 (of Statement of Defence).<o:p></o:p>