HAWKRAD JOD CONTRACTS LTD vs. CAITEC DELTA LTD [2016]DLHC3590

Date	2016-07-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO.OCC/58/2014
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC3590

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

AUGUSTINE KESSIE FOR PLAINTIFF

PATRICK BAIDOO FOR DEFENDANT

OPOKU BOATENG ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF

ANITA SHEILA CRABBE MRS FOR DEFENDANT

[2016]DLHC3590
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">HAWKRAD
JOD CONTRACTS LTD<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>CAITEC DELTA LTD<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), 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.OCC/58/2014&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 12TH JULY, 2016 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>AUGUSTINE
KESSIE FOR PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p>PATRICK
BAIDOO FOR DEFENDANT <o:p></o:p>OPOKU
BOATENG, ESQ., FOR PLAINTIFF <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">

ANITA SHEILA CRABBE, MRS FOR DEFENDANT <o:p></o:p>

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

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

</div>Plaintiff claims per the endorsement on its writ of
summons the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Declaration that the Defendant is in breach of
 the warranty covering the ten shackman trucks purchased by the Plaintiff
 from the defendant to execute a haulage contract with Adamus Resources
 Ltd.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">An order for the recovery of Gh¢1,877,289.75
 being the total loss of income for the period February to June, 2014 as a
 result of the breakdown of the said trucks.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Cost<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>PLAINTIFF’S
CASE<o:p></o:p>Plaintiff has provided the basis for his claim in the
statement of claim that accompanied the writ. Plaintiff avers that in the year
November, 2013, it won a near pit haulage contract to undertake for Adamus
Resource a haulage of its ore at Adamus Nzema site in the Western Region. It
accordingly approached Cal Bank for a loan to enable it purchase trucks to
undertake the haulage contract. Cal Bank accordingly granted it two banking
facility loans all totaling an amount of $US845.000.000. Plaintiff upon the
release of an amount of $US422.500.00 to defendant by Cal Bank procured the ten
trucks to start its operations. Plaintiff claim that it took delivery of the
ten trucks in January, 2014 to start the operation of the haulage of the ore
with an assurance by defendant that the trucks were fit for the purpose which
they were purchased for and with a one year warranty or a 30.000 km whichever
was earlier in time.<o:p></o:p>According to Plaintiff it realized a few months into
the operation of the trucks that the trucks purchased proved to be unfit for
the purpose for which they were bought. Plaintiff started experiencing break
down of the trucks just two months of being used and this compelled it to
resort to alternative means of the haulage of the ore &nbsp;and in February alone the trucks were down for
65 days and the use of alternative means of haulage cost it Ghc166.272.75. Further
breakdown for the subsequent months were provided as follows:<o:p></o:p>March – 32 days with the cost of alternative hiring of
trucks at Ghc77.112.00<o:p></o:p>April – 98 days with the cost of alternative trucks at
Ghc259.308.00<o:p></o:p>May – cost of Ghc375.732.00 <o:p></o:p>June - &nbsp;cost of
Ghc463.050.00.<o:p></o:p>July - cost of Ghc535,819.75 and that all these were
the aggregate cost of hiring alternate trucks to execute the contract.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Plaintiff further claim that two of the trucks were
involved in accident due to break failures which then compelled Adamus Resources
Ltd. to warn Plaintiff that the trucks being used for the work did not meet
mining safety requirements and needed to be withdrawn. It claims that it is
entitled to be reimbursed for the losses incurred as a result of the breakdown
of the trucks. Besides, it had been notified of the non-renewal of its contract
with Adamus Resources Ltd. because of the poor performance of the trucks and
this has occasioned serious financial hardship to the plaintiff. And hence the
reliefs he seeks as per the endorsement on the writ of summo</main>