M. BASHIRU LIVINGMAN-ELECTRICALS LTD. v. BEROCK VENTURES LTD.
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- F.G. KORBIEH J.A (PRESIDING)
- C.J. HONYENUGA J.A
- I. O. TANKO AMADU J.A
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Alternative dispute resolution
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment regarding a dispute over profit sharing in a joint venture for a rural electrification project. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court erred in not fully adopting a valid arbitration award that had been made between the parties. The appeal court emphasized the finality and binding nature of arbitral awards, stating that courts have limited power to vary such awards and must generally enforce them as issued, unless properly set aside on specific grounds. The court partially upheld the appeal, adopting the arbitral award of $39,500 less $20,000 already paid, and ordered interest to be paid on the remaining amount. The case highlights the importance of arbitration in resolving commercial disputes and the courts' role in enforcing arbitral awards.
JUDGMENT
TANKO AMADU J.A
(1) In the Commercial Division of the High Court, Accra, the Plaintiff/Appellant’s claims against the Defendant/Respondent were dismissed on the following terms.
“In view of all the evidence on record therefore the court thinks that an amount of U$D20,000 will be fair compensation to the Plaintiff for the role it played in the Joint Venture up to the bidding stage. The court therefore awards an amount of U$D20,000 to the Plaintiff as compensation for the role it played towards the winning of the contract up to the bidding stage. However, in the evidence-in-chief of the Plaintiff given on the 15th May 2015, its representative admitted that since this matter came to court the Plaintiff company had been paid an amount of U$D20,000 by the Defendant Company. The court therefore holds that the amount of U$D20,000 paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff pendente lite should be kept by the Plaintiff as compensation for the work or service it rendered in respect of the Joint Venture at the pre contract or the bidding stage. Again in view of the conduct of the Plaintiff in defaulting on its obligations towards the Joint Venture, the court is of the view that the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any interest on the sum paid to it. Save for the award hereinbefore made, the Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed”.
(2) In its Amended Statement of Claim at the Trial Court, the Plaintiff/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellant’) sought the following reliefs against the Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent’)
“(a) An order for the accounts to be designated in dollars.
(b) An order for the assessment of profit accursing to the Joint Venture
in dollars.
(c)An order for the payment of 30% of such profit by the Defendant to
the Plaintiff.
(d)Interest on the Plaintiff’s share of the profit at the current interest
rate from the 8th of August 2011 to date of final payment.
(e) Any other relief deemed fit by this Honourable Court”.
(3) In its pleadings, the Appellant averred inter alia as follows:-
“3. Plaintiff says that in or about January 2010, the Plaintiff was
contracted by the Defendant concerning a project on tender from the Millennium Development Authority (MIDA) for the construction of Rural Electricification Infrastructure in the Northern Intervention Zone.
4. Plaintiff says that after a fruitful discussion in or about March 2010,
the Plaintiff and the Defendant formed a joint venture known a