ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. PROVIDENT INSURANCE CO. LTD & ORS
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- GYAESAYOR, JA (PRESIDING)
- KORBIEH, JA
- DZAMEFE, JA
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Construction Law
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that the termination of the construction contract by the 3rd defendant was unlawful. The court found that the 3rd defendant's consultants breached their professional duties owed to the plaintiff contractor, and that the plaintiff was entitled to an extension of time and the damages awarded. The court rejected the 3rd defendant's counterclaim and held that the 1st defendant (insurer) was discharged from its obligations under the performance bond due to material changes made to the contract without its knowledge. The court emphasized principles of appellate review of factual findings, burdens of proof, and contract law in reaching its decision.
DZAMEFE, JA
The plaintiff issued this writ at the High Court against the defendants for the following reliefs:-
1. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from paying up on the Advance Payment Guarantee and the Performance Bond issued as securities for the GETFund Hostel project at Tamale Polytechnic.
2. A declaration that the termination of the contract is unlawful and a breach of contract on the part of the Client and occasioned by breaches of professional duty by the Consultant.
3. A declaration that the contractor was frustrated in its ability to complete the contract on the time owing to the breaches of contract and duty by the client and its consultant and by natural and elemental factors.
4. Damages, including special damage in the sum of Gh¢3,970,071,624.64 and cost of this action.
5. An order compelling the Parties to submit the dispute raised in this action to an Arbitrator for settlement in accordance with Section 32 of the main Contract.
The plaintiff a Construction Company duly registered in Ghana to carry on the business of building contracts.
The 1st defendant is Insurance Company, 2nd defendant the Attorney General and 3rd defendant is a Government Agency responsible as Client and employer for the construction of hostels for educational institutes.
The plaintiff in his statement of claim avered on 26th June 2003 entered into a contract with the 3rd defendant for the construction of 2 blocks of hostels at Tamale Polytechnic.
Plaintiff also provided an unconditional Advance Payment Guarantee and a Performance Bond from the 1st defendant as securities for the due performance of their duties under the contract.
The plaintiff also presented a program of works based on bid documents and prior information made available to it by the Employer and its Contract Administrator/Consultants, Messrs Arch Design Consult.
The plaintiff averred that though GETFund hostels were to be constructed in many institutions all over the country with the same plan and bid documents, the Employer consultants forgot the sites differ in nature from institution to institution.
Plaintiff said in Tamale they discovered the ground conditions at the site were totally different from the presumption made in the bid documents.
There were huge clay deposits at the site.
It is the plaintiff’s case that in view of the terrible problems caused by the failure of the design, drawings, specifications of materials and all other contract documen