ADDO ATUAH & CO. v. EUROGET DE-INVEST S.A.
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sought to recover US$2,250,000 from the defendant for alleged legal services related to hospital construction projects. Despite claiming an agreed remuneration and presenting an affidavit and witness, the plaintiff could not provide documentary evidence of engagement or services provided. The court reiterated established principles on the burden of proof, the necessity of documentary evidence, and dismissed the plaintiff's claims while awarding costs to the defendant.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for
a. An order for the recovery of the sum of US$2,250,000 being debt due and owing on account of legal fees for professional legal services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant for and concerning the implementation of the construction of eight (8) hospitals for the Ministry of Health and one (1) military hospital in Kumasi for the Ministry of Defence by the defendant which the defendant has refused/failed to pay despite several demands.
b. Interest on the sum of US$2,250,000 at the going commercial bank rate of interest on the US dollar from October 2008 up to and inclusive of the date of final payment.
c. Costs including lawyer’s fees.
The defendant caused Appearance to be entered on its behalf after the service of the writ and the statement of claim and thereafter, the defendant filed its defence. After the inability of the parties to settle at pre-trial, the case was set down for hearing at which the plaintiff gave evidence per Addo Atuah and then called one witness to close its case. The defendant did not call any of its officers to testify at the trial but it called one witness to give evidence on its behalf.
From the pleadings it is clear that the main issues between the parties are whether or not the defendant herein engaged the services of the plaintiff in 2008 or thereabout and if so, whether or not the parties agreed that the defendant will pay to the plaintiff as its remuneration 0.5% of the total contract sum or value and finally whether or not the plaintiff rendered professional legal services to the defendant.
In respect of the first issue the plaintiff has pleaded in paragraph 3 of its statement of claim that in the year 2008 the defendant engaged its services as lawyers to provide professional legal services to the defendant concerning the construction of hospitals for the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Defence. The defendant has flatly denied this allegation by the plaintiff in paragraph 4 of its statement of defence and gone ahead in paragraph11 thereof to state emphatically that it has never engaged the services of the plaintiff to perform any work for it. By the rules of evidence therefore, as stated in sections 14 and 17 of the Evidence Act 1975 NRCD 323, it becomes the duty of the plaintiff to adduce cogent and credible evidence to prove and show that in fact its services was procured by the defendant as alleged. Thus, in Ababio vs. Akwasi III [1994-1995]