DANIEL ADDO v. PSC TEMA SHIPYARD LIMITED
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Corporate Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the plaintiff, a mechanic, sued the defendant, a shipyard company, for breach of a verbal contract to repair the defendant's crane. The plaintiff sought GH₵36,000 for spare parts and labor costs, plus interest and costs. The court determined that an oral contract was valid and enforceable, that the plaintiff had indeed purchased parts and begun repairs, and that the defendant's internal procedural lapses could not invalidate the contract. The plaintiff was awarded GH₵36,000 for parts and labor, and GH₵4,000 as additional damages and costs. The court relied on principles affirming the validity of verbal contracts, companies' authority to enter such contracts, and the assumption of regularity in internal company procedures.
JUDGMENT
By an amended writ the plaintiff claims from the defendant
a. Damages for breach of contract
b. Order for the payment of cash the sum of GH₵36,000 being cost of spare parts supplied to the defendant and labour cost for the repair of the defendant’s mobile crane.
c. Interest on the said sum of money from October 2012 at the current bank rate to date of final payment.
d. Cost
After the close of pleadings and the failure of pre-trial settlement, the matter was set down for hearing after the parties had filed their witness statements. At the trial, the plaintiff gave evidence and called one witness to close his case. The defendant also gave evidence per the Head of Human Resource and Administration and then called one witness to close its case.
From the pleadings filed by the parties, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a mechanic. It is also not in dispute that the defendant is a shipyard company which repair ships. The court also finds from the pleadings that there has been a contractual or working relationship between the parties in view of the admission by the defendant that the plaintiff some time ago repaired the defendant’s compressor and also changed the engine of the defendant’s Neoplan bus from a 6 cylinder to 8 cylinder engine and for which work, the defendant paid the plaintiff.
The plaintiff contends that he was contracted by the defendant to repair the defendant’s crane which had broken down. According to the plaintiff, as a result of the said contract, he purchased various parts to repair the crane and that whiles the work was ongoing, there was a change in the management of the defendant company after which the new managing director of the company ordered the plaintiff to stop work even before he could finish executing the contract. The plaintiff then put in a claim for the cost incurred by him but the defendant refused to reimburse the plaintiff alleging that no contract ever existed between the defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore initiated the instant suit claiming the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons. The following issues arise for determination from the pleadings: Whether or not there is a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the repair of the defendant’s crane; whether or not the plaintiff supplied spare parts to the defendant; whether or not the plaintiff has repaired the defendant’s crane; whether or not the defendant is in breach of contract and finally whether or not the p