PROJECT DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL v. INFRASTRUCTURAL LOGISTICS LTD. & ANOR.
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- V.D. OFOE, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- F.G. KORBIEH, J.A.
- L.L. MENSAH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiffs, a Ghanaian company and its chairman, sued the defendant, a U.S. company, for unpaid amounts related to a contract to supply fire equipment to the Government of Ghana. The trial court issued an interim preservation of property order, which the defendant sought to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court ruled it had jurisdiction, leading to an appeal by the defendant. The appellate court examined the statutes and prior case law, concluding that the trial court had jurisdiction as the contract was made and performed in Ghana. The appeal was dismissed.
F.G. KORBIEH, J.A.
The 1st plaintiff/respondent herein is a company registered under the laws of Ghana whilst the 2nd plaintiff/respondent is the chairman and Chief Executive and more or less the alter ergo of the former. The defendant/appellant is a company registered under the laws of the United States of America and is domiciled therein. According to the plaintiffs/respondents (hereinafter simply referred to as the plaintiffs) they, together with one Takyi-Mensah (also a director of the 1st plaintiff company) agreed to work in collaboration with the defendant/appellant (hereinafter simply referred to as the defendant or defendant company), which is a management firm, to provide goods and services. It was as a result of this agreement to collaborate that the parties agreed in 2006 to supply the Government of Ghana, via the Ghana National Fire Service, fire equipment and related accessories manufactured in the U.S.A. The role of the plaintiffs in this collaborative effort was to act as the local principal actor which included making all the necessary governmental contacts and receiving all requisite approvals including cabinet/executive, parliamentary ratifications, Public Procurement Authority approvals, value for money negotiations and approvals and engaging local consultants where necessary. The total cost of the project was in the region of US$44,000,000 as evidenced by various documents. It was due to the discharge of the obligations of the plaintiffs that the defendant was able to raise the funding and to supply the equipment in batches as agreed. The plaintiffs were therefore to receive from the defendant the sum of US$2,500,000 as remuneration for their local expenses and fifty percent of the net profit arising from the supply of the equipment to the Government of Ghana. Even though the supply of the equipment was on-going and payments being made, the defendant failed to pay the US$2,500,000 owed to the plaintiffs and also failed to pay the agreed percentage of net profits due to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs therefore complained about this to the defendant who wrote a letter in response in which the defendant created a non-existent pretext as justification for “holding on to the Plaintiffs’ funds in the United States of America indefinitely.” The plaintiffs however also wrote back to the defendant stating that they were entitled to an agreed amount of US$2.5 million or its Ghana Cedi equivalent “plus 50% of the Remainder after the above Deducti