2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff company (Dadyco Construction Works Limited) sued the University of Education, Winneba for not being awarded a contract for Ghartey Hall Block 'B,' despite allegedly winning the bid. The University cited poor past performance by the plaintiff for awarding the contract to another company. The Director of Procurement falsified documents to show the plaintiff had won, leading to conflicting reports. The trial judge awarded damages to the plaintiff, but the decision was appealed. The appellate court found that the relevant Public Procurement Act provisions were misinterpreted, allowing the appeal and setting aside the initial ruling.
JUDGEMENT
KANYOKE, J.A.:
In this judgment, the parties shall be referred to simply and respectively as the Plaintiff company and the Defendants. By its amended writ of summons, the plaintiff company claimed against the defendants the following reliefs:
“a. A declaration that the tender for the rehabilitation of Ghartey Hall Block ‘B’ of the University of Education, Winneba, was won by Dadyco Construction Works Limited pursuant to the bid evaluation.
b. A declaration that the award of the tender to and the execution of the work by any other entity except Dadyco Construction Works Limited is unlawful.
c. The award of one hundred and seventy thousand Ghana cedis (Gh¢170,000.00) in damages for the losses incurred in bid preparation, loss of income resulting from the loss of the tender by Dadyco Construction Works Limited and loss of other words leading to loss of income resulting from the publication of defamatory material to tarnish the intergrity and image of Dadyco Construction Works Limited by the University of Education, Winneba.
d. General damages.
e. Perpetual Injunction to restrain the University of Education from publishing any defamatory material against Dadyco Construction Works Limited.
f. A publication of a retraction of the defamatory material published in the Daily Graphic of the 26th day of March 2010 and 1st day of April 2010 editions in the same manner as the publication of the defamatory material.
g. Costs.”
The plaintiff company also filed a statement of claim reciting the basis and the facts of its case. This statement of claim was amended twice, the final one having been filed on the 2nd of February 2012 (see pages 359-361 of the Record of Appeal – ROA). The defendants resisted the action and also filed a joint statement of defence, subsequently amended and filed on the 16th day of May 2012, found at page 368 of the ROA. At the close of the pleadings, the following issues were set down for trial in an application for directions:
“a. Whether or not the tender and evaluation process conformed to the requirements under the Public
b. Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663).
c. Whether or not the Entity Tender Evaluation recommended the plaintiff company for the award of the contract for the rehabilitation works at Ghartey Hall Block ‘B’ of the University of Education, Winneba.
d. Whether or not the plaintiff’s tender was ascertained to be the successful tender in accordance with the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663).
d. Whether or