ROAD SAFETY & TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANCIES LTD VRS TATA AFRICA HOLDINGS (GH) LID.

INTRODUCTION

[1]. My Lords, this appeal arises from a judgment delivered on 31 May 2021 by the High Court (Commercial Division 7), Accra. The suit involved a claim brought by Road Safety & Transportation Consultancies Ltd (the Plaintiff/Respondent) against Tata Africa Holdings (Ghana) Limited (the Defendant/Appellant) for breaches allegedly arising from the purchase and warranty obligations of certain buses. In the judgment under appeal, the learned trial judge awarded the Plaintiff/Respondent the sum of GH¢326,116.00 as the cost of repairs and GH¢100,000.00 as general damages. These awards were predicated on the trial court’s findings that the Defendant/Appellant had breached terms relating to the warranty of the buses. The Defendant/Appellant, taking exception to these findings and the quantum of damages awarded, has lodged this appeal on several grounds which we shall revert to later.

The Defendant/Appellant contends that the judgment awarding damages is against the weight of evidence, in part because it believes the learned trial judge erred in concluding that the Defendant had ceased repairs during the warranty period. Furthermore, the Defendant/Appellant challenges the evidential basis of the trial court’s reliance on the cost of repairs schedule and the ultimate sum awarded. The Appellant asserts that the expenses calculated should be excluded to the extent they fall outside of the warranty period or were otherwise not covered by any warranty obligations.

Against this background, this Court is invited to review the record of proceedings, examine the findings of the trial judge, and consider whether the damages awarded are sustainable in law and in fact. The central issues raised by the grounds of appeal revolve around whether the trial court applied the correct legal and evidential standards in arriving at its findings on liability and the quantum of damages. This appeal therefore seeks both a review of factual determinations and the legal conclusions derived from them, with the Appellant urging this Court to overturn the High Court’s decision and grant any further relief deemed appropriate.

PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT CASE AS PLEADED

[2]. By Writ of Summons which Plaintiff caused to be issued on 13/12/2016 the Plaintiff claimed against Defendant/Appellant:

(i) An order of the court directed at the Defendant to withdraw and replace all the 10 buses; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

(ii) An order for the payment of One Milli