2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a contract dispute between Dakab Consult and X-Cell Engineering (plaintiffs) and a government ministry (defendant) over payment for consultancy services related to the rehabilitation of UNDP flats. The court found that a valid contract existed based on the exchange of letters and the plaintiffs' performance of the requested work. The court rejected the defendants' arguments that there was no formal contract and that proper procurement procedures were not followed. The court awarded the plaintiffs GH₵552,146.46 plus interest for their main claim, and an additional GH₵5,752 plus interest for an earlier unpaid balance. The case establishes important principles regarding contract formation, the enforceability of verbal agreements, and the court's power to amend pleadings to ensure justice is done.
JUDGMENT
By a writ of summons issued in January 2012, the plaintiffs seek:
a. A declaration that plaintiffs are entitled to recover the sum of GH₵552,146.46 being fee claim for work done for the 2nd defendant sector Ministry on renovation and redecoration of UNDP flats at Cantonments
b. Interest on GH₵552,146.46 at the prevailing bank lending rate from April, 2003 to date of final payment.
c. General damages for breach of contract.
d. Costs including lawyer’s fees.
e. Any just and equitable reliefs.
After the close of pleadings and the inability of the parties to settle at pre-trial, the matter was set down for hearing at which the parties gave evidence per their representatives and closed their cases.
From the statement of claim filed by the plaintiffs, the court finds that the 2nd defendant, per a letter dated the 25th March 2002, informed the 1st plaintiff of the 2nd defendant’s intention to rehabilitate the UNDP block of flats situate at Cantonments. The court finds that by the same letter, the 2nd defendant invited the 1st plaintiff to assess the works which needed to be carried out on the said UNDP flats. Indeed these works included mechanical, electrical, masonry, and painting among others. Again the court finds that by the same letter the 2nd defendant invited the 1st plaintiff to submit estimates in respect of the costs of the rehabilitation works. Exhibit A tendered by the plaintiff attests to this finding.
From the statement of claim the court finds that in response to the 2nd defendant’s request contained in exhibit A herein the 1st plaintiff, who is a Quantity Surveyor by profession, engaged the services of X-Cell Engineering, 2nd plaintiff herein to assist the 1st plaintiff carry out the work which it had been tasked to do; and, on the 23rd August 2002 the plaintiffs submitted a report including the estimates to the 2nd defendant. This is evidenced by exhibit B tendered by the plaintiffs. Again from the statement of claim the court finds that on the 4th day of September, 2002 the plaintiffs submitted to the 2nd defendant a Consultancy fee for the consideration of the 2nd defendant as shown by exhibit C.
The above findings of fact are all contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the statement of claim which have been admitted by the defendants in paragraph 6 of their statement of defence. The court holds that the defendants are bound by their admissions and hence the plaintiff need not give evidence in proof of these admitted allegations.