TRAPEQ LIMITED v. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI (GH.) LTD.
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- KANYOKE, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- OFOE, J.A.
- DANQUAH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Equity and Trusts
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal arose from a dispute between Trapeq, a haulage company, and a mining company over compensation for services performed after their contract (C2175) expired in August 2007. With the defendant’s consent, Trapeq continued hauling at the old rates while the parties tried, unsuccessfully, to agree new rates. The High Court rejected Trapeq’s US$835,019 claim based on a proposed cost model (Exhibit G), but awarded a 20% quantum meruit for services from December 26, 2007 until termination on October 15, 2008, denying interest. On appeal, Kanyoke, J.A. held that clauses 3.2–3.4 of C2175 required payment at existing rates until agreement, that competitor rates were not comparable due to differing scope and distances, and that special damages must be strictly proved. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment.
KANYOKE, J.A. The issue for determination in this appeal is a simple and straight forward one, namely whether the trial judge exercised her discretion properly in awarding a claim for quantum meruit on the facts of the case in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. For ease of reference and brevity I shall in this judgment maintain the status or description of the parties at the court below, to wit plaintiff and defendant respectively.
The facts of this case culminating in the appeal herein are as follows: The plaintiff is a haulage company engaged in the business of haulage of ore and waste whilst the defendant company is a mining company. The relationship between the plaintiff company and the defendant company had existed for several years and the last contract between them, Contract No. C2175, tendered in evidence as Exhibit A, commenced on 26th August 2006 and expired in August 2007. After the expiration of C2175, the plaintiff with the consent and approval of the defendant, continued to provide haulage services to the defendant, at the rate stipulated in C2175 whilst they attempted to negotiate a new rate for the payment of those services.
After a period of more than one year when the parties could not come to an agreement on the new rate the defendant terminated the relationship, prompting the plaintiff to request payment for the difference between what had been paid to it based on the old rate in the expired Contract No. C2175 and what the plaintiff considered to be a reasonable and fair compensation for the services it provided the defendant during the period. The defendant refused to pay prompting the plaintiff to sue the defendant seeking the following reliefs:
“a The payment of eight hundred and thirty-five thousand, nineteen Dollars (US$835,019.00) its equivalent in cedis being an amount owing to plaintiff by defendant.
b Interest on the said sum at the prevailing bank rate from September 2007 till the date of final payment.
c Cost.”
At the close of pleadings, the issues agreed and set down for trial and determination were:
“1 Whether or not the rates which the defendant was paying the plaintiff after the expiration of the contract C2175 were fair, reasonable and consistent with what other rival haulage contractors were being paid by the defendant.
2 Whether or not the plaintiff’s call for an upward review of the rates under contract C2175 and the amount being claimed as per the October, 2008 invoice were fair, reasonable and consistent wit