2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court reviewed an appeal regarding a dispute over an oral agreement for road maintenance and financial responsibilities between the Appellant (a company) and the Respondent (a contractor). The lower courts had sided with the Respondent, awarding him monetary compensation and interest. However, the Supreme Court found that the Respondent did not produce sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims regarding the agreement and the expenses incurred. Consequently, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing the importance of the burden of proof and proper evidence in such disputes.
THE UNANIMOUS JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IS READ BY MARFUL-SAU JSC, AS FOLLOWS-:
BY MARFUL-SAU JSC,
This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal sitting at Cape Coast dated 27th June 2018. In this judgment, the defendant/ Appellant /Appellant will be referred to as Appellant and the Plaintiff/Respondent /Respondent shall be referred to as Respondent. The facts of the case briefly are that the respondent claimed that in January 2009, the appellant agreed and released control, possession and management of sand deposits on its concession to him. According to the respondent, as part of the agreement, he was to make available to the appellant and its officers quantities of sand as and when they needed it. The respondent also asserted that he was required to maintain the private motorways linking appellant’s concession area of the sand deposits.
The respondent also alleged that in January 2015, appellant requested him to re-gravel the public road from the town of Atta Ne Atta to Bogoso Junction in the Prestea-Huni Valley District. The respondent further claimed that with the consent of the appellant, he secured a credit facility in the sum of GHC 900,000.00 from his bankers at an interest rate of 35% to execute the road works. The respondent finally contended that in November 2015, the appellant unilaterally abrogated the agreement without any justifiable reasons and repossessed the sand deposit.
The appellant denied the claims of the respondent and insisted that it never entered into any agreement with him to rehabilitate the Atta- Ne Atta to Bogoso Junction road. The appellant also denied that it agreed or consented to the respondent taking a facility of GHC 900,000.00 from his bankers to execute the road works. The appellant case is further that in 2015, it embarked on a community project involving the rehabilitation of the road and the appellant voluntarily assisted by conveying gravel and laterite for the road works. The appellant also stated that the District Assembly also contributed in the rehabilitation of the road works.
Based on these facts, the respondent took out a writ of summons against the appellant and claimed the following reliefs:-
‘’(a)Recovery of the sum of GHC 900,000.00 being the cost incurred by the plaintiff in re-gravelling the road from the town of Atta Ne Atta to Bogoso Junction at the instance of the defendant; and
(b)Interest at 35% on the said sum from January to date of payment.
After the trial in the High Cour