JIDEM SECURITY LTD vs. BULK OIL STORAGE & TRANSPORTATION [2018]DLHC3489

Date	2018-04-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO.CM/0134/15
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3489

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2018]DLHC3489
																																						<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">JIDEM SECURITY LTD<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>BULK OIL STORAGE &amp; TRANSPORTATION<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.CM/0134/15&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 23RD APRIL, 2018<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">

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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">

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

</div>Plaintiff
claim the following reliefs endorsed on its writ issued against the Defendant
the following:<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">An order for the payment of the sum of €33,390.71
 or its cedi equivalent which the Defendant owes the Plaintiff<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">Interest on relief (1) above from the 11th
 of August, 2015 till date of final payment.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">Damages for breach of contract<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">Cost<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">Any other relief as this honourable court may
 deem just.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>In a 39 paragraph statement of claim Plaintiff avers
that it won a bid to provide services for the installation and maintenance of a
closed circuit television system (CCTV) at the Defendant’s depot at the Accra
Plains for an amount of €412,348.15 (Four Hundred and Twelve Thousand Three
Hundred and Forty Eight Pounds and Fifteen Pence). And that as part of the
terms of the contract 75% of the contract price had to be paid before order and
installation or the receipt of advanced payment guarantee from a reputable
insurance company with 25% of the amount to be paid upon the issuance of a
certificate of completion by the supplier. To Plaintiff it complied with the
terms of the contract by providing an advance mobilization guarantee and a
performance bond from SIC Insurance Ltd.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Plaintiff claim that Defendant delayed for several
months in paying the 75% of the contract sum which also delayed the performance
of the contract leading to the completion of the project on the 4th
of April, 2014. That upon completion it wrote to notify Defendant and informed
Defendant of the need for adequate security to ward of threats to the safety of
the installation and of the need for the training of Defendant’s personnel on
the use of the facility. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Plaintiff avers that notwithstanding the execution of
the project and the handing over to it of the &nbsp;substantial completion certificate, Defendant
has been unwilling to pay the outstanding contract sum on the spurious claim
that there were defects, which said claim Plaintiff had confirmed to be the
tempering of the equipment by Defendant’s own employees. It was agreed between
the parties that Plaintiff will repair the damage after receipt of the
outstanding amount of £82,469.63 from the Defendant. A letter was subsequently
received from the Defendant of its instructions to their bankers to transfer
the amount less withholding tax into Plaintiff’s account only to be informed
later that Defendant was unable to carry through that instructions on the
grounds that the Bank of Ghana’s regulation did not support the payment of
foreign currency to local content.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Plaintiff contends that Defendant succeeded in
transferring a cedi amount of Gh¢400,001 which amounted to £65,573.93 leaving
an amount of £12,772.22 which Defendant has failed to pay after several calls
on him to pay. Finally Plaintiff claim that with the expiration of the defect
liability period the 5% of the contract price amounting to £20,618.49 has also
not been paid and hence the claims before the court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>STATEMENT
OF DEFENCE OF DEFENDANT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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>Defendant in its amended statement of defence has
denied the essential claims of the Plaintiff. Defendant claim that Plaintiff unduly
delayed in informing Defendant of the revised work schedule after the receipt
of the advance payment and hence this extended the completion of the works by
nine months. And that at various meetings with Plaintiff it was pointed out to
Plaintiff several outstanding works that had not been done the reason for which
Defendant could not have taken over the project. And per the terms of the
contr</main>