EKOW ESSUMAN SUBS’T BY RUTH SERWA ESSUMAN & ORS v. ABOSO GOLDFIELDS LTD.

A. M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS), J.A

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Sekondi dated 21st June 2017. In the said judgment, the learned High Court judge entered judgment for the plaintiff/respondent herein on all the reliefs endorsed on his Writ of Summons save for relief III(a) which will be particularised shortly.

2. The background to this appeal is that, the parties entered into two separate agreements by which the plaintiff/respondent was to provide haulage of tailing services to the defendant/appellant. The first agreement, marked Exhibit B is dated 30th March 2015 and was to take effect on 1st April, 2015 and expire on 31st December 2015. The second agreement marked Exhibit B1, is dated 6th July 2015 and was to take effect on 7th July 2015 and expire on 30th December 2015. There was no serious contention about the delivery of the first agreement but it is the operation of the second agreement that landed parties at the High Court, Sekondi, culminating in this appeal before this court. The controversy with this second agreement is about payments due under the agreement and the abrupt end of the agreement on 15th December 2015 that was expressly stated to expire on 30th December 2015.

3. The plaintiff/respondent’s case is that from July 2015 to December 2015, at the request of the defendant/appellant, he supplied the latter with truckloads of tailings amounting in value to Gh⊄2,582,000.00. He averred that the defendant/appellant paid for the cost of the haulage with an outstanding balance of Gh⊄220,000.00. He further averred that the defendant/appellant however failed to pay even a pesewa for the cost of the tailings despite several demands to that effect by the plaintiff/respondent, including a written demand letter from his lawyers. It is the further case of the plaintiff/respondent that the defendant/appellant further contracted him in or about April 2015 to haul tailings from various concessions of the defendant/appellant to its mine site at Damang which the plaintiff/respondent executed from the said April 2015 to 15th December 2015.

The plaintiff/respondent averred that there were regular weekly meetings as regards the performance of the contract and that at a weekly meeting held in the last week of November 2015, the defendant/appellant represented or instructed the plaintiff/respondent that it (the defendant/appellant) urgently needed an increased supply of the tailings.

4. The plaintiff/respondent averred that, relyi