YEHANS INTERNATIONAL (GH) LTD vs. JACOB GBATI AND TEMA COMMUNITY ONE [2014]DLCA2889

Date	2014-06-26
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/118/2013
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA2889

JUSTICE KANYOKE (JA) PRESIDING

JUSTICE GYAESAYOR (JA)

JUSTICE MARGARET WELBOURNE (JA)

BABA AVIO FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

COL. MAAMA IDDRISU (RTD) FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2014]DLCA2889
																																						<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" >YEHANS INTERNATIONAL (GH) LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JACOB GBATI AND TEMA COMMUNITY ONE<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. H1/118/2013&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 26TH
JUNE, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>BABA
AVIO FOR 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">

COL. MAAMA IDDRISU (RTD)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT&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>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">

JUSTICE KANYOKE (JA) PRESIDING, JUSTICE
GYAESAYOR (JA) AND JUSTICE MARGARET WELBOURNE (JA)<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE MARGARET
WELBOURNE (JA)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
appeal is against the Judgment of the High Court Commercial Division, Accra,
dated 27th March, 2012.<o:p></o:p>The
Appellant is praying the court to set aside the judgment and confirm the
counterclaim of the Defendant.<o:p></o:p>A
summary of the facts are that at the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff
supplied to the Defendant various aluminium products at a total cost of US$157,657.11 (One Hundred and Fifty-Seven
Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty-Seven United States Dollars Eleven Cents) by
invoices dated 30th November, 2007, 30th May, 2008, and
23rd July, 2008, respectively.<o:p></o:p>The
Defendant accepted the terms and conditions of the invoices aforesaid, and made
a part-payment in the sum of US$129,993.90
(One Hundred and Twenty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Three United
States Dollars Ninety Cents) leaving an outstanding balance in the sum of
US$26,698.10 (Twenty-Six Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety-Eight United States
Dollars Ten Cents).<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff served demand notice for the payment of the outstanding sum of
US$26,698.10 (Twenty-Six Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety-Eight United States
Dollars Ten Cents) on Defendant to no avail.<o:p></o:p>By
an amended writ of summons and statement of claim taken out of the registry of
the High Court, Commercial Division, Accra, Plaintiff claimed against the
Defendant an order for the payment of the sum of US$26,698.10 (Twenty-Six Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety-Eight United
States Dollars Ten Cents)or its cedi equivalent together with interest at the
prevailing US Dollar Commercial Bank lending rate from 22nd July,
2008, up to in inclusive of the date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>The
Defendant resisted the action and delivered a statement of defence and
counterclaim on 13th December, 2010.<o:p></o:p>In
short, the Defendant admitted that he had an agreement with the plaintiff for
the supply of aluminum windows and alucoband for his building known as Global
Tower at Tema.<o:p></o:p>It
was agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the cost of supply and
installation of the alucoband was GH¢36,000.00 (Thirty-Six Thousand Ghana
Cedis) whilst the glass works was valued GH¢100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand
Ghana Cedis).<o:p></o:p>It
was the Defendant’s case that he requested blue colour but the Plaintiff
supplied a different colour and sprayed it which affected the quality of work.<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff delayed the start of the work and the work was not properly done
thereby leading to leakage during rain. Although the defendant requested the
Plaintiff to remedy same, he refused to do so.<o:p></o:p>Contending
that the Plaintiff acted in breach of the terms of the contract, the Defendant
counterclaimed for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Special
damages of GH¢7,500.00 (Seven Thousand Five Hundred Ghana Cedis).<o:p></o:p>b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; General
damages for breach of contract.<o:p></o:p>The
trial court delivered judgment on 27th March, 2012. &nbsp;The learned trial judge found that Plaintiff
acted in breach of the contract because it failed to complete the contract
works.<o:p></o:p>The
outstanding works, in the opinion of the learned Judge, were minor and thus did
not go to the root of the contract.<o:p></o:p>The learned trial judge entered judgment in
favour of Plaintiff less the cost of the outstanding works and awarded
Defendant general damages for breach of contract in th</main>