MADAM TAWIAH AGYEMAN v. SAMUEL DARKO & ANOR
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Her Ladyship Angelina Mensah-Homiah (Mrs.)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court determined that no enforceable contract existed between the Plaintiff and Defendant due to the lack of intention to create legal relations. However, the Plaintiff was awarded GH¢30,000.00 on a quantum meruit basis for the supervisory and administrative services rendered to the Defendant during the construction of storerooms. Additionally, the tenancy agreement was found to have been renewed in November 2009 for a further 10 years, expiring in 2019. The Plaintiff is to pay the outstanding ‘goodwill’ amount of GH¢2,500 to the Defendant, which would be set off against the awarded amount. Costs of GH¢2,000.00 were awarded in favor of the Plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff in the instant action seeks to recover the sum of One hundred and Three Thousand, Six hundred and Eighty Ghana Cedis (GH¢103,680.00) being the value of services rendered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant during the construction of sixty six (66) storerooms at Adum, Kumasi. She is also claiming interest on the said sum from December, 2009 till date of final payment.
It appears from the Pleadings that the Parties dealt with each other based on trust such that their agreements were not reduced into writing. What then has turned this hitherto trusted and healthy relationship into a “battle field”? First, I will state the Plaintiff’s version of events leading to this action. Her case is that she has been the Plaintiff’s tenant since the year 1999 based on two oral tenancy agreements. The first agreement was for a period of ten (10) years commencing 1999 to 2009.Upon expiration, it was renewed for a further period of 10 years, initially at an agreed rent of GH¢ 5,000.00, which Defendant unilaterally raised to GH¢15,000.00. Out of this sum, Plaintiff said she has so far paid GH¢12,500.00. Notwithstanding this payment, the Defendant caused her shop to be locked up on two occasions, but she cut off the locks on the second occasion. In the course of her tenancy, it came to her notice that the Defendant had control over a vacant parcel of land in front of the shops in issue. Thus, she discussed with the Defendant the possibility of Defendant developing this land into stores. Due to lack of funds, Defendant authorized her to get interested market women to pre-finance the project. This she did religiously by collecting money from numerous people and paid the same to the Defendant in his house, on his farm or into defendant’s designated bank accounts. Problems ensued. Construction was delayed for two years and upon completion, Defendant allocated stores to people other than those who had pre-financed the project and this led to his detention at the Police station but the Plaintiff bailed him.
Defendant put the Plaintiff in charge of the construction and she gave particulars of the services rendered in paragraph 21 of her amended statement of claim filed on 10/06/2013 as follows:
i. Supervision of the construction of the 66 storerooms.
ii. Purchase of building materials for the construction.
iii. Utilization of Plaintiff’s water to mould majority of the cement blocks used for the construction of the storerooms.
iv. Plaintiff transported hers