CELL CONSTRUCTION LTD VS PRIMEROSE PROPERTIES GH. LTD

In this contempt proceedings, the applicant prays for an order committing the Respondent to prison for contempt in that the Respondent has disregarded an application for Injunction pending before the court.

A brief summary of the case is that on the 15th of May, 2015, the applicant issued a writ of summons and statement of claim against the Respondent herein asking for the following reliefs:

i. A declaration that Defendant’s purported termination of its contract with Plaintiff per Defendant’s letter of 14th April, 2015 was wrongful.

ii. An Order of specific performance directed at Defendant to specifically perform all of its obligations in terms of its contract with Plaintiff as varied on, inter alia, the 21st day of July, 2014.

iii. Recovery of the total sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty Eight point Eighty Three Ghana Cedis (GH₵255,688.83).

iv. Interest on item (iii) above at a rate of simple interest from the individual accrual days of its three companies.

v. Recovery of any amount of money wrongfully claimed from Zenith Bank (Ghana) in terms of Plaintiff’s performance bond provided as security for Plaintiff’s performance of the contract.

vi. Interest on item (v) above at the prevailing bank rate from the date of Defendant’s wrongful collection of such funds.

vii. Recovery of all sums due from works completed by Plaintiff whose final assessment or payment certification remains outstanding.

viii. Interest on item (vii) above at the prevailing bank rate from the date of its determination to date of final payment thereof.

ix. Costs.

The Respondent entered appearance and filed a statement of defence and counterclaim. The applicant then filed an application for Interim Injunction to restrain the Respondent from continuing the works on the project and also from demanding payments of the performance security.

The court appointed a valuer to measure the works done by the applicant on the project up to the date of the termination of the contract for preservation. The valuer’s report was submitted to the court on the 27th of July, 2015. Upon the receipt of the valuation report, the court made the following orders on the 28th July, 2015:

“On the 9th of June, 2015, the court ordered AESL to move to the site and value the work done by the plaintiff in respect of the Rhombus Project. The valuation report has been submitted to the court. Consequently, I hereby order the defendant to continue the project. Suit to take its no