|
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiffs sued the
Defendant for the following
reliefs:
1.
Specific Performance of the Sale
and Purchase Agreement entered
into between the Plaintiffs and
the Defendant or in the
alternative the refund of the
sum of £12,000.00 paid by the
Plaintiffs to the Defendant.
2.
Interest on the sum of
£12,000.00 at the current bank
rate from October, 2007 to date
of final payment.
3.
Damages for breach of contract.
4.
Costs.
It is the Plaintiffs’ case that
sometime in August 2007, the
Plaintiffs entered into a Sale
Agreement with the Defendant who
offered to construct a one unit
three (3) bedroom semi-detached
house at their Okpoi Gonno Site,
off the Spintex Road.
Plaintiffs’ Attorney, Mutiu
Tijani tendered in evidence, the
offer letter (exhibit “B”). His
evidence was that the cost of
the building was agreed by the
parties as £30,000.00. He also
tendered in evidence copies of
the counter cheque and bank
receipt for the payment of
£12,000.00 which was made on 30th
October, 2007. Exhibit “D” is a
series of emails in which
Defendant acknowledged receipt
of the said £12,000.00.
The Defendant failed to enter
appearance in this matter. So it
was that on the 2nd
of November, 2009, interlocutory
judgment was entered for the
Plaintiff for the refund of the
sum of £12,000.00.00 together
with interest at the prevailing
interest rate from October, 2007
to date of final payment. The
suit was adjourned for damages
to be assessed. The Defendant
was duly notified of the date
for the assessment of damages,
but did not show up in court for
the exercise. The Plaintiff has
adduced evidence in the absence
of the Defendant and its
Counsel.
Plaintiff has led sufficient
evidence to establish that there
has been a breach of contract.
Plaintiff is seeking damages for
breach of contract. It is trite
learning that damages are the
normal remedy for a contracting
party who suffers as a result of
a breach of contract by the
other party.
In the case of
Delmas Agency Ghana Ltd v. Food
Distributor International Ltd
[2007-2008] SCGLR 748;
the general principle relating
to damages was expatiated on.
It was held that general damages
are as the law will presume to
be the natural or probable
consequence of the Defendant’s
act. It arises by inference of
the law and therefore need not
be proved by evidence. The law
implies general damages in every
infringement of an absolute
right. The catch, it was
further stated, is that only
nominal damages are awarded;
where the Plaintiff has suffered
a properly quantifiable loss; he
must plead specifically his loss
and prove it strictly. If he
does not, he is not entitled to
anything unless general damages
are also appropriate.
In the instant case, on the
evidence adduced by Plaintiffs’
Attorney, I am of the opinion
that Plaintiff is entitled to
general damages, and will so
find.
In conclusion I will enter final
judgment in favour of Plaintiffs
for a refund of the sum of
£12,000.00 paid by the
Plaintiffs to the Defendant,
together with interest at the
prevailing bank rate from
October 2007 to date of final
payment. I will award general
damages of GH¢10,000 against the
Defendants.
Costs assessed at GH¢2,000.00.
(SGD)
BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU (J)
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
COUNSEL
GEORGE AMISSAH
|
