JUDGMENT
On the 17th day of
October 2008, I ordered
interlocutory judgment for the
Plaintiffs in this suit and
adjourned the same for the
Plaintiffs to adduce evidence in
proof of their claim against the
Defendants. I have heard the
evidence of PW1, an employee of
the Plaintiff and the 2nd
Plaintiff who tender in evidence
a contract of service between
the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants (Exhibit A, B, B1,
to B6), which
particularized the nature of the
service the Defendants were
obliged to perform under the
contract between them and the
Plaintiffs. Of significance to
me is the fact that the
Plaintiffs have substantially
performed on all their
obligations under the contract
by paying monies to Defendants
to their detriment while the
Defendants have failed to
complete the installation of
kitchen equipment, which have
instruction manuals in Italian
language rendering the equipment
incapable of being put
to good use.
The Plaintiffs are in this court
seeking specific performance and
damages for breach of contract.
In the case of LARTEY Vs.
BANNERMAN (1972) 2GLR 438
Sorkodie J. of (blessed memory)
stated succinctly the rationale
for granting the equitable
remedy of specific performance
as follows:
“Specific
performance is an equitable
remedy generally granted to
enforce against a defendant the
duty of doing what he agreed by
consent to do provided the
contract is valid in form and
has been made between competent
parties and is unobjectionable
in its nature”
The Plaintiffs have no doubt
established the existence of a
contract between them and the
Defendants, which the Defendants
have failed to fully discharge
on their obligations. I do not
think from the nature of the
equipment partly installed for
the use of the Plaintiffs,
damages will be sufficient to
compensate the Plaintiffs and
consequently I shall grant the
relief of specific performance
as prayed.
The Plaintiffs have in their
evidence established that they
have suffered substantial damage
as a result of the Defendants
conduct they having to shuttle
between East Dzorwulu and Legon,
the latter being where the
Defendants are supposed to
install the kitchen equipment.
The Plaintiffs have adduced
evidence that as a family which
includes four children and other
house helps they have been put
to great hardship and
inconvenience and consequently
they are entitled to damages as
in the discretion of the court
will be sufficient.
On the strength of the
Plaintiffs’ evidence therefore I
order as follows:
1.
An order for specific
performance against the
Defendants to perform on their
obligations to a logical
conclusion with respect to the
installation of kitchen
equipment and accessories at the
Plaintiff’s East Legon property
based on the contract between
the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants.
2.
I shall award the Plaintiffs
general damages of GH¢7,500.00
and costs of GH¢2,500.00 against
the Defendants. Ordered
accordingly.
(SGD.)
JUSTICE I. O.
TANKO AMADU
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT |
