C.C.W. LIMITED v. ACCRA METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY

J U D G M E N T

DR. DATE-BAH, J.S.C.

The facts

The Plaintiff is a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Ghana. It carries on the business of waste collection, disposal and management and also provides landfill services. The Defendant is a statutory body whose existence as a District Assembly was continued by the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462). By an agreement of 4th December 1997, the Defendant engaged the Plaintiff to render waste disposal services, including landfill services, within the city of Accra. The agreement was to last 7 years from the date of its execution. The agreement further provided that both Parties had the option of renewing it for a further 7 years. The Plaintiff averred that it commenced work under the agreement on 13 July 1999 and continued to perform its obligations under it until 29th June 2001, when the Defendant terminated the agreement by a letter of that date. The Plaintiff contends that this termination constituted a breach of contract and has therefore brought this action, by a Writ dated 25th June 2002, claiming the following reliefs:

“(a) An order compelling the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the equivalent in cedis of US $ 10,207,718.51 at the prevailing forex bureau rate on the date of actual payment being the cost of services provided by the Plaintiff for the Defendant pursuant to the Service Agreement executed by the parties on 4th December 1997 less any amount adjudged upon independent valuation to be owing to the Defendant for the use by the Plaintiff of the Defendant’s waste management depot.

Interest on the sum mentioned in paragraph (a) above from June 28, 2001 until the date of judgment;

Damages for breach of contract;

Loss of profit;

Further or other relief;

Costs.”

The Defendant, in response, challenged the enforceability of the agreement, pleading in its Amended Statement of Defence that the agreement was executed under duress and in breach of section 67(1) of the Defendant’s Standing Orders and sections 39, 87 and 88 of the Local Government Act, 1993. The Defendant further contended that the Memorandum of Understanding which gave rise to the agreement and the decision of the Defendant to hold shares in the Plaintiff Company was never debated and approved by the General Assembly of the Defendant, as required by law. The Defendant maintained that it was not obliged to continue operating under an illegal contract which contained unconscionable terms and conditions. F