ADM COCOA GHANA LIMITED v. INTERNATIONAL LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- GYAESAYOR JA (PRESIDING)
- K.N. ADUAMA OSEI JA
- M.M. AGYEMANG (MRS) JA
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Tort Law
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around a warehouse construction contract between a cocoa processing company and a contractor. Significant floor defects were discovered post-construction, leading to a lawsuit by the employer for defective workmanship and materials. The trial court found in favor of the employer, awarding damages. On appeal, the court upheld that the contractor failed to adhere to agreed specifications, held that liability extended beyond the one-year defect period set in the contract, and adjusted the awarded damages based on proven evidence and inflation considerations.
JUDGEMENT
AGYEMANG JA:
In this appeal, the appellant seeks a setting aside of the judgment of the High Court of the 25th of July 2014.
These are the matters antecedent to the present appeal.
On 1st February 2008, the plaintiff/respondent (hereafter referred to alternately as the respondent, the plaintiff, or the Employer) describing itself as a company involved in cocoa processing, signed a works contract with the defendant/appellant (referred to hereafter alternately as the appellant, the defendant, or the Contractor), for the construction of a sixteen thousand square meters warehouse at Kaase in Kumasi: the approximate size of two international football parks. The construction was expected to be completed by 1st September 2008 when the respondent was due to receive a consignment of cocoa for storage thereat.
Among the terms contained in the contract exhibit Awere these: That the standard of work, workmanship and materials were to be in accordance with the British Standard Specification or Codes of Practice; the specifications intended to govern the construction were said to be contained in two documents attached thereto:the approved designs, and the bill of quantities. The appellant’s obligations included the carrying out of the works in accordance with another document referred to as the Program of Works. In that enterprise, the appellant was required to: use reasonable skill, care and diligence; good quality materials approved by the respondent; to employ the best workmanship and experienced craftsmen; to execute the works in the best careful and first class manner; to comply with statutory requirements; to work in accordance with standard technical specification and requirements of the employer as agreed by the parties; to execute the works to the respondent’s satisfaction;to complete the works by the due date of September 1, 2008, and to deliver same up.
There were also clauses setting out the Contractor’s liability for defects: we reproduce them as follows:
“3.4 LIABILITY FOR DEFECTS
3.4.1 The Contractor covenants and undertakes to promptly repair all defects in the structure, walls, floors, plumbing, installations and all the works he has executed which occurs within one year of the completion date.
3.4.2 The Contractor shall be liable to the Employer for all loss damage or injury caused to the Employer or its servants and licenseeswhich is caused by any structural defect, inferior materials used or poor workmanship, negligence of the cont