FRANCIS BALFOUR AGURGO. VS RUDAN ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.

Plaintiff sued defendant seeking the following reliefs:

I. Recovery of the amount of GHc 43,864.02 being the outstanding debt owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.

II. Interest on the amount of GHc 43,864.02 at the current bank rate from November 2012 till the date of final payment.

Costs

Plaintiff, an Information Technologist and Remote Sensing Consultant, was engaged by the defendant to perform specific tasks under a project. The duration of the project was from November 2011 to April 2013, worked in man months. It was a term in the agreement (which is in evidence as exhibit 1) that the plaintiff would be paid $4,000 per man month, totaling $24,000 or its cedi equivalent, which was GHc 32,340.00 at the time. The agreed field per diem rate was GHc 120.00 for duties performed outside his Kumasi base office during the six man month contract period. The agreement also provided for the rental of digitizing tablets at the rate of GHc 300.00 per month in use.

Plaintiff averred that after the first six man-month period, which ended in May 2012, the defendant further requested him to work for an extra six man months at the same fee from June 2012 to November 2012. Although he completed work for the extra six man month period, the defendant has failed to pay him and as of April 2013 was indebted to him to the tune of GHc 70,393.40. Plaintiff averred that the defendant has since paid GHc 26,529.39, leaving a balance of GHc 43,864.02, which the company has failed to pay despite repeated demands. Plaintiff further claims that the defendant has also refused to pay him the sum of GHc 5,100 being rental charges for the two digitizing tablets.

Defendant denied the claims and averred that the company did not extend the contract period as alleged and put the plaintiff to strict proof. Defendant contended that after signing the contract, the plaintiff started agitating for variation of the fees payable under the contract, and at a meeting held in November 2012, the company agreed to a 17% variation which has been duly paid to him. Defendant denied owing the plaintiff rent of GHc 5,100 and averred that the digitizers were never used for the project. Defendant contended that although the agreement made reference to rental of digitizers, it also provided that payment was on condition of usage.

Defendant further contended that whatever was owed to the plaintiff after reconciliation by the parties was paid to him through Expert Consult, his appointed agents, on 23rd of