SKYLIMIT STRUCTURE BUILDERS CO. LTD VS TULLOW GHANA LTD

By its amended writ of summons, the plaintiff asked for the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that having regard to all the circumstances of this case it will be inequitable for defendant to resile from its agreement with plaintiff to provide crane and forklift service to defendant at Takoradi.

2. An order directed at defendant to refund to plaintiff all expenses incurred by plaintiff upon the legitimate expectation that defendant would award to it the contract to provide crane and fork lift services to the defendant at Takoradi.

3. General damages

4. Costs of this suit on a full indemnity basis.

The case of the plaintiff is that sometime April 2011, defendant by an advertisement, invited bids from interested persons for the provision of crane and fork lift services at Takoradi. The plaintiff contends that the defendant specially invited the plaintiff to participate in the tender. The plaintiff submitted its bid to the defendant for the provision of crane and fork lift services in accordance with the defendant’s Tender instructions.

It is the case of the plaintiff that after the close of the tender period on the 22nd July, 2011, the defendant represented to the plaintiff both in words and conduct that the plaintiff’s bid to provide crane and forklift services to the defendant had been accepted by the defendant. It is further contended by the plaintiff that it was made to believe by the defendant that its bid has been selected and that the execution of a formal contract was a mere formality. Believing the said statement of the defendant, the plaintiff contended that it incurred certain expenses relating to movement of plaintiff’s equipment from Mali and Togo to Ghana (which expenditure the plaintiff says would not have been incurred by plaintiff but for defendant’s representations to plaintiff that it had accepted plaintiff’s bid to provide crane and forklift services to defendant); acquisition of new equipment thereby incurring further expenses; expenses incurred in the construction of a base in Takoradi; expenses incurred in the certification of cranes, operators, etc.

It is the case of the plaintiff that at a meeting with defendant on the 1st November, 2011 the defendant fixed November 11th 2011 as the date for execution of a formal contract but in view of plaintiff’s apprehensions regarding the delay in executing a formal contract, defendant allayed plaintiff’s fears by an email dated 5th November, 2011 to which email was attached a letter