GLORYLORD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS GHANA WATER COMPANY LIMITED
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP FRANCIS OBIRI ‘J’.
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the Plaintiff sought payments for services rendered under a contract, totaling GHS 363,486.54, plus interest and legal fees. On 1st September 2022, the Defendant paid the full amount claimed less a 5% retention. The central legal issues were whether interest should be paid on the amount and the duration and rate of such interest. The court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to interest calculated from December 2019 to the date of payment in September 2022, at commercial bank lending rates. The court referred to established legal principles, upholding the Plaintiff's claim for interest and awarding costs.
On 16th February 2021, the Plaintiff issued Writ of Summons from the registry of this court for the following reliefs against the Defendant.
1. Payment of the sum of GHS35, 689. 45 (Thirty-Five Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty-Nine Ghana Cedis, Forty-Five Pesewas) being retention the Defendant owed the Plaintiff.
2. Payment of the sum of GHS327, 797. 09 (Three Hundred and Twenty-Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ninety-Seven Ghana Cedis, Nine Pesewas) being the contract sum for the connection of 400 additional households in the Ga Municipal Assembly in the greater Accra Metropolitan Area awarded by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
3. Interest on the said sums of money at commercial banks’ lending rate from 30th July 2019. 4. Cost, including lawyers fee of 10 percent (10%) of the amount claimed.
5. Any further or other orders as the court may deem just. The Defendant entered appearance on 2nd March 2021 and filed its statement of defence on 2nd June 2021. There were interim applications by both parties.
In the course of proceedings, the court was informed that the amount claimed by the Plaintiff has been paid by the Defendant less an agreed retention rate of 5% in relief “2”as claimed by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s reliefs 1 and 2 therefore became moot.
As a result of the payment of the money by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, the court set down two main issues in this case for the parties to address them.
The issues are: a. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal sum paid to it by the Defendant? b. If so, when should the interest start and end? The court came to that conclusion because the law is settled, that if there is any legal point which is evident from the proceedings, and it involves substantial point of law which can dispose of the matter in one way or the other, then it should be decided.
It can even be determined in some cases where it was not specifically pleaded, but is evident from the record as in cases like fraud.
See: KWAKU v SERWAH AND OTHERS [1993-1994] 1 GLR 429 SC KWANTRENG v AMASSAH AND OTHERS [1962] 1 GLR 241 SC ATTORNEY-GENERAL v FAROE ATLANTIC CO.
LTD. [2005-2006] SCGLR 271 KOWUS MOTORS v CHECK POINT GHANA LTD. [2009] SCGLR 230 Furthermore, the law is that where a legal issue can be raised and disposed of a case without the need for further evidence, then it should be allowed.
In the case of FATAL v WOLLEY [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1070 at page 1076, Georgina Wood CJ (as she then was) sa