SKYLIMIT STRUCTURE BUILDERS LIMITED vs. TULLOW GHANA LIMITED [2017]DLSC5193

Date	2017-11-16
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J8/212/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLSC5193

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

BENIN JSC

JUSTICE MINKAH-PREMO FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT.

THADDEUS SORY FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2017]DLSC5193
																																						<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" >SKYLIMIT
STRUCTURE &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; BUILDERS LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TULLOW GHANA
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT)<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
MOTION NO. J8/212/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;16TH
NOVEMBER, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
MINKAH-PREMO FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT.<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">THADDEUS SORY FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING), BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, BENIN
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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>DOTSE,
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>This is a Ruling arising from an application for
special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 131 (2) and
134 (b) of the Constitution 1992, filed by the Defendant/Appellant/Applicant
hereafter referred to as Applicants.<o:p></o:p>The application has been opposed by the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent,
hereafter referred to as Respondents.<o:p></o:p>In view of the somewhat complicated and complex
facts of this case, we deem it appropriate to set out the facts in some detail
as follows:-<o:p></o:p>FACTS
OF THE CASE<o:p></o:p>The Applicants by an advertisement, invited bids
for the provision of crane and forklift services in Takoradi in April 2011. The
Respondents answered the advert and put in their offer for tender, in
accordance with the Applicant’s tender instructions. The Applicants, after a
meeting on 1st November, 2011, sent an email to the Respondents with
a Letter of Intent (LOI) attached to allay the Respondent’s fears over the delay
in executing a formal contract between the parties.<o:p></o:p>This LOI, according to the Applicants was a sign
of their intention to execute a formal contract between the parties, subject
only to formal approval from the Applicants management and partners. After the
close of the tender period, the applicants, on 20th July, 2011 represented to
the respondent in both words and conduct that the respondent’s bid to provide
crane and forklift services had been accepted by the applicants and that a
formal contract was to follow soon.<o:p></o:p>The respondents, based on these assurances, moved
operation from Mali and Togo to Ghana and acquired equipment and an operational
base in Takoradi for the provision of the crane and forklift services required
by the applicants. However, before the respondents could commence operations,
the LOI was terminated by the applicants, leading to a suit in court.<o:p></o:p>At the trial High Court, compensatory damages of
GHS10 million and USD$113,000.00 and costs of GHS80,000.00 were awarded against
the applicants. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Court, the applicants
then appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal on 5th January
2017. <o:p></o:p>A Motion for Stay of Execution pending Appeal was
filed by the Applicants and moved on 25th January, 2017. The High
Court, on 9th February, 2017 however, refused this application. A
repeat application was then applied for in the court of Appeal. On the 27th
of March, 2017, a partial stay of execution of the High Court judge’s judgment
was allowed by the Court of Appeal constituted by a single Judge.<o:p></o:p>The Applicant then applied under article 138 (b)
of the Constitution and section 12 of the Courts Act (ACT 459), to have the
application determined by the Court of Appeal duly constituted by way of
reversal, variation or discharge of the decision of the single justice. The
Applicant’s application for stay of execution to the Court of Appeal duly
constituted was also dismissed, confirming the decision of the single Judge on
24th May 2017<o:p></o:p>An application pursuant to articles 131 (2) and
134 of the Constitution to a single Judge of the Supreme court for a variation
of the orders of the Court of Appeal duly constituted was also dismissed per a
considered ruling by our respectful brother Pwamang JSC. The dismissal</main>