ZOOMLION GHANA LTD vs. MERSKWORLD COMPANY LTD [2014]DLSC4886

Date	2014-07-30
Suit No.	ZOOMLION GHANA LTD (PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT /APPELLANT) vs. MERSKWORLD COMPANY LTD
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC4886

ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC PRESIDING

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS.) JSC

AKAMBA JSC

OSAFO BUABENG ESQ. WITH HIM RICHARD BOBISON AND ANDREW MERCER

FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

TONY LITUR ESQ. WITH HIM KOFI SOMUAH FOR THE DEFENDANT /RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2014]DLSC4886
																																						<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" >ZOOMLION GHANA LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MERSKWORLD COMPANY LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, 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 APPEALNO. J4/33/2014&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 30TH
JULY 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>OSAFO
BUABENG ESQ. WITH HIM RICHARD BOBISON AND ANDREW MERCER FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/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">

TONY
LITUR ESQ.&nbsp; WITH HIM KOFI SOMUAH FOR THE
DEFENDANT /RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ADINYIRA
(MRS.) JSC PRESIDING, ANIN YEBOAH JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS.) JSC,
AKAMBA JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>SOPHIA ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC (PRESIDING):<o:p></o:p>Facts<o:p></o:p>Plaintiff-Appellant
(Plaintiff) and Defendant-Respondent (Defendant) are both engaged in the
business of waste management. On 13 October 2008, Plaintiff entered an
agreement with the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), under which the Plaintiff
was to pre-finance the construction of a refuse disposal facility at the
disused stone quarry located at Sarbah, North-West of Oblogo, and operate the
pit for a period of 3 years, subject to renewal. On 15 October 2008, the
Plaintiff obtained an Environmental Permit (No. 2004) from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for the construction and operation of the pit, and
proceeded to do so.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Meanwhile,
on 23 February 2009, Defendant negotiated with members of the Gbawe Kwartei
family, which said that the land belonged to them, and paid GHC 200,000, a cow,
a sheep and assorted drinks, for the right to use the pit for a period of 99
years. On 25 February 2009, the Kwartei family granted the Defendant access and
right of entry to the land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
3 December 2009, Defendant entered the Sarbah landfill with police personnel
and vehicles, and removed Plaintiff’s workmen, servants and agents on the
Sarbah pit, leading to the present dispute. Both sides sought a declaration of
their exclusive right to enter and operate the pit, an order for recovery of
possession of land, a perpetual injunction restraining the other party from
entering and dumping refuse in the pit, and damages. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At
the time the action was commenced, the Sarbah pit was empty. While the High
Court initially granted an interlocutory injunction restraining both parties
from using the pit until the final determination of the suit, new evidence
submitted by the Plaintiff and concerns for public health caused the High Court
to revise the interlocutory injunction to allow the Plaintiff alone to use the
pit. The Plaintiff alone operated the Sarbah pit as a commercial dumping site
until June 2012, when it became full with refuse and was closed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
April 9, 2013, the High Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendant. The
Court ordered the Plaintiff to vacate the site and to pay: (1) special damages
of GHC 17,581,010 with interest, (2) Gh 20,000 in damages for trespass, and (3)
GHC 20,000 in costs. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment is pending.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
May 20, 2013, the Court of Appeal granted a Stay of Execution on the judgment
of the High Court, pending the Plaintiff’s appeal, on the condition that it pays
50% of the judgment debt to the Court within 30 days, to be invested by the
Registrar in a good interest-yielding bond.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;The Plaintiff appeals against the Stay awarded
by the Court of Appeal, on the basis that the conditions imposed were onerous
and therefore amounted to a wrongful exercise of judicial discretion.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Grounds of Appeal<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;