LIZORI LIMITED v. MRS. EVELYN BOYE & ORS
2013
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- DR. DATE BAHJSC (PRESIDING)
- ANIN-YEBOAH JSC
- P. BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC
- A. A. BENIN JSC
- J. B. AKAMBA JSC
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2013
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around a dispute over a construction contract, with the Plaintiff alleging that the Defendants unilaterally terminated the contract and failed to pay for work completed. The trial court initially sided with the Plaintiff, but this decision was partially overturned by the Court of Appeal, prompting a further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled largely in favor of the Plaintiff by disallowing certain unstamped documents and factual errors considered by the Court of Appeal. The Court, however, reduced the general damages awarded to the Plaintiff to nominal damages, emphasizing the insufficiency of loss evidence presented by the Plaintiff.
BENIN, JSC:-
The Defendants/Appellants/Respondents, hereinafter called the Defendants and the Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant, hereinafter called the Plaintiff entered into a contract whereby the Plaintiff was to construct a two storey building plus an extra floor at Kotobaabi for use by the Defendants as a domestic science and catering school block. The Plaintiff’s case was that the total cost of the project was estimated at over one billion old cedis. The plaintiff was to pre-finance the project and submit bills to the Defendants for payments as and when necessary. Plaintiff further averred that they completed two floors and started work on the extra floor. At this stage the Defendants unilaterally abrogated the agreement and re-awarded the job to another person. The Plaintiff pleaded further that it submitted bills for work so far done but the Defendants failed or refused to pay despite repeated demands. That was why it commenced this action at the High Court, Accra, claiming the reliefs endorsed on the writ, as amended, namely:
An amount of ¢298,268,634.00 being value of work done for Defendant by Plaintiff.
b) Alternatively, any amount found due to Plaintiff after assessment by court.
2. Interest on (a)
General damages for breach of contract.
The Defendants averred that the agreement was between the Plaintiff and the second defendant and was made around August 2002. That the second defendant supplied quantities of materials notably iron rods and blocks to the Plaintiff for the construction. However, the Plaintiff did a shoddy job. According to the Defendants it was the Plaintiff who abandoned the work after December 2003. They went on to describe what works the Plaintiff did at the site which was not substantial compared to what it was contracted to do. The defendants averred that the second defendant paid the Plaintiff for work done. They therefore rejected the Plaintiff’s claims.
The trial court heard oral testimony; but, before then, it appointed the Architectural and Engineering Services Limited (AESL) as experts to ascertain the amount of work done on the entire building and to value same and ascertain any outstanding payments. Both parties were ordered to co-operate with the experts. The experts’ report was put in evidence as Exhibit CE1, with four Appendices. At the end, the trial High court entered judgment for the Plaintiff and made certain awards including special and general damages and interest in its favour. The trial court rejecte