EASTERN ALLOYS COMPANY LTD. v. CHIRANO GOLD MINES
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- M.OWUSU, (J.A.) - PRESIDING
- DORDZIE, (J.A.)
- MENSAH, (J.A
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Corporate Law
- Commercial Law
- Evidence Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court (Commercial Division) in Accra awarded the plaintiff Gh¢10,000.00 in costs following the termination of an ore haulage contract by the defendant after five months of operations. Dissatisfied with this decision, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal on multiple grounds, which included alleged errors in considering evidence and legal principles. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's ruling, dismissing each ground of appeal and recognizing the binding authority on the plaintiff and the adequacy of the minimal proof principle, among others. The legal principles affirmed include the necessity for explicit authority in corporate representation, the application of the minimal proof principle in cases of non-denial, and the obligations for mitigating losses. The appeal was found to have no merit, and the judgment of the High Court was affirmed.
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.:
On 13th day of October, 2014, the High Court (Commercial Division) Accra, entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the reliefs indorsed in the plaintiff’s amended writ of summons and awarded cost of Gh¢10,000.00 in favour of the plaintiff.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:
i. That the learned trial Judge failed to give adequate consideration to Exhibit ‘F’, which is a waiver by the defendant/appellant on any claim of mobilization payment paid to the plaintiff in full and final settlement of an outstanding claims preceding the termination of the plaintiff/respondent’s contract;
ii. That the learned trial Judge misdirected himself on the law when he held that PW2; the plaintiff/respondent’s Operation Manager did not have the authority, whether express or implied, to execute Exhibit ‘F’ on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent’s Managing Director;
iii. That the learned trial Judge erred when he held that in the absence of a categorical denial of the plaintiff/respondent’s averment in respect of the “particulars of loss”,the plaintiff/respondent averment had been proven by the application of the “minimal proof principle”;
iv. That the learned trial Judge erred when he failed to give any consideration to the fact that the claim by the plaintiff/respondent for compensation in the sum of one million, three hundred and fifty thousand United States Dollars ($1,350,000.00) was a claim in the nature of special damages;
v. That the learned trial Judge erred in upholding the claim of the plaintiff/respondent for the sum of one million, three hundred and fifty thousand United States Dollars ($1,350,000.00) in spite of the failure of the plaintiff/respondent to prove its claim;
vi. That the learned trial Judge erred when he held that the plaintiff/respondent was engaged by the defendant/appellant in April, 2009 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that the plaintiff/respondent was engaged in May, 2009 and mobilized to the contract site on the 1st of June, 2009 to commence execution of the contract;
vii. That the learned trial Judge erred when in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, he held that the evidence of DW2 to the effect that contrary to the testimony of the plaintiff/respondent his company had not received any payment from the plaintiff/respondent for the equipment hired, was unreliable and unsustainable;
viii. That the learned trial Jud