DANKOTEC COMPANY LTD. VS METRO MASS TRANSIT LTD
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP NOVISI AFUA ARYENE (MRS.),
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sued the defendant for unpaid construction dues and bid security refund. The court ruled that while the plaintiff was owed retention monies, the case required an independent valuation of the contracted work and its deficiencies to settle remaining payment disputes.
Plaintiff claims against the defendant the following reliefs:
I. Recovery of the sum of thirty-two thousand nine hundred and sixty-nine cedis ninety-six pesewas (GHc32, 969.96) being outstanding monies owed to the plaintiff for services rendered and monies paid as bid security to the defendant.
II. Interest on the sum in relief (i) above from 22nd October 2012 till the date of final payment.
Facts:
Sometime in November 2010, the defendant, a company engaged in transportation services, contracted the plaintiff to construct a bus terminal for the company in Takwa in the Western Region. In furtherance of the agreement, the defendant engaged Wacon Consulting Engineers, a civil and structural engineering company, to supervise the construction work and to raise valuation certificates for payment by the defendant.
On 22nd of October 2012, Wacon Consulting Engineers (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as the consultants) raised valuation certificate no. 7 for the payment of the sum of GHc44, 478.95 to the plaintiff for 100% completion of works, but the defendant failed to pay this sum despite repeated demands. Instead, the consultant raised another valuation certificate numbered as no. 7A dated 15th of January 2013, and reduced the amount payable for the completed works from GHc44, 478.95 to GHc24, 978.77. The defendant paid the reduced amount to the plaintiff, leaving the balance of GHc19, 500.18. The plaintiff also averred that despite successfully completing the work, the defendant has failed to refund the sum of GHc13, 469.78, which she paid as bid security under the agreement.
The defendant denied the claim and in a statement of defense filed on 27th of August 2013 averred that after the contract was terminated, several defects were detected in the work done by the plaintiff and there were also several outstanding works, as a result of which valuation certificate no. 7 was withdrawn and replaced with a revised certificate no. 7A, which recommended payment of the sum of GHc24, 978.77 representing works satisfactorily completed by the plaintiff. The defendant averred further that certificate no. 7A was paid after the defendant had explained the reasons for the withdrawal of certificate no. 7 to the plaintiff and the latter had accepted the same.
In further denial of the plaintiff’s claims, the defendant averred that the plaintiff was not entitled to a refund of bond security and that the only securities agreed by the parties in the agreement were p