RELIX COMPANY LTD (PLAINTIFF) vs. NORDIC QUARRY SOLUTIONS LTD (DEFENDANT) [2019]DLHC7050

Date	2019-03-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E3/19/18
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7050

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.

SAMUEL AGBOTTAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

BEN ACKAAH-GYASI ESQ FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[2019]DLHC7050
																																						<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" >RELIX COMPANY LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NORDIC QUARRY SOLUTIONS LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<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. E3/19/18&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 14TH
MARCH, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SAMUEL
AGBOTTAH ESQ. FOR THE 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">

BEN ACKAAH-GYASI ESQ, FOR THE
DEFENDANT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.<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>On 22nd January 2019,
this court upon the default of the defendant in the case filing a defence,
decreed judgment for the plaintiff for the reliefs endorsed on the writ of
summons.<o:p></o:p>The reliefs were:<o:p></o:p>(i)General damages for breach of
contract.<o:p></o:p>(ii)Loss of earnings and recovery of
rent charges commencing from May 2013 to date of judgment.<o:p></o:p>(iii)An order against the defendant
not to sell, mortgage or do anything regarding 3 Crushers of the plaintiff
until the plaintiff has made all payments to the defendant.<o:p></o:p>(iv)Any other relief as the court
may deem fit.<o:p></o:p>The decree on reliefs (i) and (ii)
was interlocutory and the court ordered the plaintiff with notice to defendant
to adduce evidence for purposes of assessing damages and losses suffered by the
plaintiff<o:p></o:p>On 14th February 2019,
upon notice to the defendant, the plaintiff’s representative Peter Brown Pobee
gave evidence on oath. <o:p></o:p>His testimony in line with the
plaintiff’s pleaded case was that the plaintiff was the beneficiary of a quarry
concession situate at Abakrampa in the Central Region. The defendant approached
the plaintiff to express interest in mining the quarry. The parties entered
into a memorandum for that purpose. The terms of the memorandum a copy of which
he tendered as exhibit A included payment of $10,000 as commitment fee and
$16,000 per month as rent.<o:p></o:p>According to him, the defendant paid
the commitment fee but defaulted on the monthly rent. He said the default
spanned the period between June 2013 and July 2018. In the result, the
plaintiff lost the concession as it could not raise money to renew the licence.
The concession he says has been revoked and re-allocated to another person. He
prays for an order compelling the defendant to pay the outstanding rent and
compensation for the loss of the concession.<o:p></o:p>The defendant’s representative at
the hearing gave no evidence in rebuttal.<o:p></o:p>From the facts, the plaintiff was
the beneficiary of the quarry. It however did not mine it by itself. It
preferred giving it out to the defendant to mine and pay rent. Curiously,
exhibit A also made provision for the supply of chippings and quarry dust to
the plaintiff to meet the plaintiff’s protocol demands whatever that means. Mr
Pobee however did not tell the court that the defendant did not supply those. I
believe however that he would have said so if that obligation was not
performed. It does appear from the evidence therefore that the non-payment of rent
constitutes the only loss of earning suffered by the plaintiff under relief (ii)
on the endorsement. <o:p></o:p>The amount involved in the default
of rent is easily ascertainable. The parties fixed it at $16,000 a month
payable latest by the 7th day of the ensuing month. They however
agreed that the first monthly payment was to be made by 24th May
2013.<o:p></o:p>It is significant to note from
exhibit A that the agreement was to remain initially for 5 years. There is
provision for renewal for another 5 years. Either party shall give three months
notice of intention to renew. There is no evidence of any renewal neither is
there anything to show that an intention to renew was expressed by either
party. It seems the agreement expired at the end of the first term. Given that
the agreement took effect on 24th December 2012, it could have
expired in December 2017. I thus fail to see how the plaintiff could claim rent
for 2018.<o:p></o:p>I think the period should start from
May 2013 to December 2017. This gives 55 months at $16,000 per month amounting
to $880,000.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff sought general damages
for breach of contract. The well-known principle is that in a claim for damages
for breach of contract, the innocent party is to be placed financially in the
position he would have been had there not been the breach. See DELMAS AGENCY
VRS FOOD DISTRIBUTORS (2007/2008)2 GLR 748. The test of remoteness is the
universally acceptable one. That is to say whether the loss was reasonably
fore-seeable as liable to result from the breach. See VICTORIA LAUNDARY LIMTED
VRS NEWMAN INDUSTRIES LTD (1949)2 KB 528<o:p></o:p>QUARCOO VRS APPIAH (1972)2 GLR 30.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff’s evidence was that by
reason of the non-payment of rent by the defendant, it was unable to renew its
licence with the result that the concession was revoked. I have no doubt about
the reasonable foreseeability of the revocation of the concession from the
breach of non-payment of rent. The payment of rent was the reasonably probable
means to meet obligation required to keep the licence valid. It seems to me however
that this </main>