ADM COCOA GHANA LIMITED vs. INTERNATIONAL LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED [2016]DLCA4420

Date	2016-12-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO: HI/6/2015
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4420

GYAESAYOR JA (PRESIDING)

K.N. ADUAMA OSEI JA

M.M. AGYEMANG (MRS) JA

EDEM KUTSIENYO FOR THE PLAINTIFF / RESPONDENT

KWAME BOAFO AKUFFO FOR DEFENDANT / APPELLANT

[2016]DLCA4420
																																						<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" >ADM COCOA GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>INTERNATIONAL LAND
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SUIT NO:&nbsp; HI/6/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 15TH DECEMBER, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EDEM KUTSIENYO 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">

KWAME
BOAFO AKUFFO 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">

GYAESAYOR
JA (PRESIDING), K.N.&nbsp; ADUAMA OSEI JA,
M.M. AGYEMANG (MRS) JA<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">

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

</div>AGYEMANG
JA:<o:p></o:p>In this appeal, the appellant seeks a
setting aside of the judgment of the High Court of the 25th of July
2014.<o:p></o:p>These are the matters antecedent to the
present appeal. <o:p></o:p>On 1st February 2008, the
plaintiff/respondent (hereafter referred to alternately as the respondent, the plaintiff,
or the Employer) describing itself as a company involved in cocoa processing,
signed a works contract with the defendant/appellant (referred to hereafter
alternately as the appellant, the defendant, or the Contractor), for the
construction of a sixteen thousand square meters warehouse at Kaase in Kumasi:
the approximate size of two international football parks. The construction was
expected to be completed by 1st September 2008 when the respondent
was due to receive a consignment of cocoa for storage thereat. <o:p></o:p>Among the terms contained in the
contract exhibit Awere these: That the standard of work, workmanship and
materials were to be in accordance with the British Standard Specification or
Codes of Practice; the specifications intended to govern the construction were
said to be contained in two documents attached thereto:the approved designs,
and the bill of quantities. The appellant’s obligations included the carrying
out of the works in accordance with another document referred to as the Program
of Works. In that enterprise, the appellant was required to: use reasonable
skill, care and diligence; good quality materials approved by the respondent; to
employ the best workmanship and experienced craftsmen; to execute the works in
the best careful and first class manner; to comply with statutory requirements;
to work in accordance with standard technical specification and requirements of
the employer as agreed by the parties; to execute the works to the respondent’s
satisfaction;to complete the works by the due date of September 1, 2008, and to
deliver same up. <o:p></o:p>There were also clauses setting out the
Contractor’s liability for defects: we reproduce them as follows:<o:p></o:p>“3.4 LIABILITY FOR DEFECTS<o:p></o:p>3.4.1
The Contractor covenants and undertakes to promptly repair all defects in the
structure, walls, floors, plumbing, installations and all the works he has
executed which occurs within one year of the completion date.<o:p></o:p>3.4.2
The Contractor shall be liable to the Employer for all loss damage or injury
caused to the Employer or its servants and licenseeswhich is caused by any
structural defect, inferior materials used or poor workmanship, negligence of
the contractors workmen, negligent working or maintenance of lighting or
plumbing installations or other equipment or lack of drainage.<o:p></o:p>3.4.3
The Contractor agrees to compensate the Employer in full for all loss, damages,
expenses, costs including legal costs the Employer shall incur for loss damage
or injury which arises out of the works or any product or material used or
installed on the property”<o:p></o:p>The defendant commenced the
construction which was supervised in some measure by servants of the plaintiff:
notably, the plaintiff’s representative and Project Manager at site whose
duties on his showing, were quality assurance and supervision to ensure that
the defendant worked within prescribed timeline</main>