HEILAND RESOURCES LIMITED VS SINOPEC INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM LTD & ORS

ASIEDU JSC:

[1]. INTRODUCTION:

My lords, this is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 28th July, 2022. In the said judgment, the Court of Appeal set aside a ruling delivered by the High Court in favour of the 3rd Defendant/Applicant/Respondent/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant). The ruling of the High Court was delivered on the 6th July, 2021. The Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant/Respondent shall hereinafter be referred to as the Respondent.

[2]. NOTICE OF APPEAL:

By a notice of appeal filed on 9th August, 2022, the Appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:

a. That the judgment is against the weight of evidence.

b. Additional grounds of appeal will be filed upon receipt of the record of appeal.

Pursuant to leave of this Court granted on the 6th February, 2024, the Appellant filed additional grounds of appeal on the 8th February, 2024. The additional grounds of appeal are that:

1.The learned judges wrongly exercised their discretion in holding that the alleged contracts covering the work done by the Respondent fell outside the scope of work defined in the Lateral Line Contract and that they were extra works which were so extensive that they could not be ordinarily incidental to the Lateral Line Contract when it omitted to consider the following:

a. The learned judges omitted to consider that the project was a complex one which covered a very long distance and therefore its complex nature had attendant characteristics which may appear as extra works, especially when considered only through having regard to photographic images, although they were merely incidental to the overall realization of the project.

b. The learned judges omitted to consider that the nature of the project, being a complex one, made it certain that the Respondents would have to create their Right of Way (ROW) as and when they came upon obstacles, in order to perform the main contract, the Lateral Line Contract, in fulfilment of their contractual obligation.

c. The learned judges omitted to consider that the Respondent is an experienced subcontractor and therefore, it was reasonable for it to anticipate that given the long stretch of distance the project covered, they would encounter situations for which they had a duty to find solutions to, which included the creation of a Right of Way (ROW) in the event that obstacles were met during the performance of the contract.

d. The learned judges omitted to consider affidavit e