NIMONAT LIMITED v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S DEPT. & MINISTRY OF FINANCE
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On the 20th December 2016, the plaintiff filed a writ against the defendants claiming GH¢67,135.00 for construction work done in 2006 for the Ghana @ 50 Secretariat. The defendants raised a preliminary objection based on the statute of limitations. The court found the plaintiff’s claim time-barred under Section 4(1) of the Limitation Act, as it was filed nine years after the cause of action accrued in 2007. Additionally, the court held that the suit was improperly brought against the Attorney General’s Department, instead of the Attorney-General, as mandated by Article 88(5) of the Constitution. The plaintiff’s writ and statement of claim were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
On the 20th December 2016, the within named plaintiff issued a writ against the defendants herein claiming against them “an order for the recovery of (GH¢67,135.00) Sixty-seven thousand one hundred and thirty-five Ghana Cedis being the amount due and owing the plaintiff.” The writ was accompanied by a statement of claim. An appearance was entered on behalf of the defendants who later, filed a statement of defence in which certain legal defences were raised to the plaintiff’s claim.
On the 17th January 2018, the defendants filed a ‘Notice of Preliminary Legal Objection’ in which they prayed the court to set down for preliminary legal argument and also to dismiss the plaintiff’s writ of summons and statement of claim on the basis of legal issues raised in paragraphs 6, 8, 11 and 12 of the statement of defence. Indeed the said paragraphs state that:
6. The Defendant in further answer to paragraph 7 state that assuming the Defendants owed the Plaintiff, (which is denied), that debt is statute barred with the lapse of time since 2007.
8. The Defendants will raise by way of preliminary legal argument that the Plaintiff’s action is statute barred.
11. The Defendants further states that the Plaintiff is statute barred from bringing any action in relation to the claim as it has been 11years since the Plaintiff’s cause of action, if any, first accrued.
12. Wherefore the Defendants state that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs endorsed on its Writ of Summons or at all and same ought to be dismissed.
The plaintiff’s claim as shown by the statement of claim particularly paragraph3 is that:
‘sometime in September 2006, the now defunct Ghana @ 50 Secretariat contracted the Plaintiff Company to construct (3) three two-storey four bedroom houses under the AFRICAN UNION IDENTIKIT PRESIDENTIAL MANSIONS PROJECT at Cantonments, Accra in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana.’
The plaintiff says that the total cost of the project came to GH₵204.300.00 out of which an amount of GH₵129,461.90 was paid by the Ghana @ 50 Secretariat. The plaintiff says in paragraph 6 and 7 of the statement of claim that after reconciliation between the parties to the alleged contract the outstanding debt owed to the plaintiff came to GH₵67,135.00 and that all efforts to have this debt paid to the plaintiff proved futile since the project was taken over by the Ghana @ 50 Secretariat in 2007. The plaintiff therefore claims per the endorsement on its writ of summons.