SW GLOBAL LIMITED vs ACCRA METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH- BOAFO
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around the interpretation of Clause 9.1 in an Information Technology Services Agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant. After the Plaintiff provided timely notice to renew the contract, the Defendant decided not to renew it and sought third-party services through public advertisement. The Plaintiff sought legal reliefs including specific performance and an injunction. The court interpreted Clause 9.1 as non-mandatory, thereby freeing the Defendant from the obligation to renew the contract. The court ruled that the Defendant was not in breach for seeking new contracts through a procurement process.
Introduction: [1] This case is about the proper interpretation of a clause in the contract signed between the parties herein.
The central issue for my determination is whether the said Clause 9. 1 in the agreement bars the Defendant from engaging another entity or individual to provide the services the Plaintiff perform under the contract signed.
Resolution of this issue requires determination of whether the Clause 9. 1 confers exclusive right on the Plaintiff and, if so, whether same is in breach of the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663). [2] The Plaintiff claims the following judicial reliefs per its writ of summons filed on December 11, 2017: i. An order by way of specific performance of the Information Technology Services Agreement dated January 29, 2010 that the Defendant renews the Information Services Agreement in favour of Plaintiff; ii.
General Damages in addition to specific performance; iii.
An order of injunction restraining the Defendant by its officers, servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from engaging the services of another person, firm or company, until after the expiration of the renewed term, to provide the services Plaintiff has been contracted to provide under the Information Technology Services Agreement dated January 29, 2010. iv.
Costs including Solicitor’s fees; v. Further or other relief. [3] After the service of the writ and its accompanying statement of claim which was amended on December 15, 2017 on the Defendant, an Appearance was entered by one Benjamin Barfo-Bonney on December 12, 2017 at 11: 25 A. M. but on the same day at 2: 20 P. M. a Notice of Change of Solicitor was filed by Leslie J. Anim Esq. of Pebble Law Consult after which a Statement of Defence was filed on January 15, 2018 by which the Defendant denied all the allegations of the Plaintiff. [4] The Plaintiff filed a reply to answer the defence filed on February 27, 2018. Meanwhile the Plaintiff on January 8, 2018 filed a Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction by which the Plaintiff prayed for an Order to restrain the “Defendant/Respondent whether by its officers, servants or agents or other howsoever from engaging or taking any steps to engage the services of another person(s), entity, firm or company, to provide the same or similar services Respondent contracted the Applicant to provide under the Information Technology Services Agreement dated January 29, 2010; or implementing any agreement the purpose of which is to provide the same