ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP LIMITED vs. PROVIDENT INSURANCE CO. LTD , ATTORNEY GENERAL AND GHANA EDUCATION TRUST FUND [2020]DLSC8741

ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP LIMITED vs. PROVIDENT INSURANCE CO. LTD , ATTORN... [2020]DLSC8741

Date	2020-03-18
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/31/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLSC8741

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC (PRESIDING)

PWAMANG JSC

MARFUL-SAU JSC

DORDZIE (MRS) JSC

KOTEY JSC

EFIBA AMIHERE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

ELSIE GOH FOR THE 1STDEFENDANT/REPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

BAFFOUR AWUAH WITH NAA AMA KUMAH BARNOR FOR THE 3RD DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

[2020]DLSC8741
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PROVIDENT INSURANCE CO. LTD (1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT), ATTORNEY GENERAL (2ND DEFENDANT) AND GHANA EDUCATION TRUST FUND (3RD DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/31/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 18TH MARCH, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EFIBA AMIHERE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>ELSIE GOH FOR THE 1STDEFENDANT/REPONDENT/RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

BAFFOUR AWUAH WITH NAA AMA KUMAH BARNOR FOR THE 3RD
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC (PRESIDING), PWAMANG JSC, MARFUL-SAU JSC, DORDZIE
(MRS) JSC, KOTEY JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>PWAMANG, JSC:-<o:p></o:p>My Lords, this case comes before us as the final
appellate court of the Republic. The case stems from an agreement made on 26th
June, 2003 by which the plaintiff/respondent/respondent (the plaintiff) undertook
to build two hostels at Tamale Polytechnic for the 3rd
defendant/appellant/appellant (3rd defendant). The plaintiff is a
building contractor and the 3rd&nbsp;
defendant is an agency of the Government of Ghana in charge of providing
facilities for educational institutions among other functions. The agreement
was comprehensive and spelt out the rights, duties and obligations of all the
parties and stated what should happen in the event of, practically, all the
known contingencies in construction projects. The agreement provided for a
dispute resolution mechanism for industry experts to arbitrate any dispute that
may arise. Despite all this, the parties ended up in court and the case has
taken fifteen years to be brought to closure. <o:p></o:p>The facts of the case are largely documentary and
its resolution ought to have consisted in applying the detailed provisions of
the agreement to the facts and arriving at a decision which, in our opinion,
should have taken far less judicial time than happened in this case. Also, if
the alternative dispute resolution mechanism provided for in the agreement had
been applied, the controversies regarding the technical aspects of the case
would have been resolved by building industry experts so that any outstanding
issues of pure law could then have been brought to the courts for determination.
However, for reasons that do not concern us in this appeal, the court refused
to grant an application for reference of the case for arbitration. But it ought
to be stated, that from the record, a considerable amount of the time was used
up by the parties to attempt settlement and for valuation of the works executed
before the dispute arose. <o:p></o:p>My Lords, in the agreement, the cost of building
the two hostels in today’s Ghana Cedis is GHS1,388,763.80 (Thirteen Billion,
Eight Hundred and Eighty Seven Million, Six Hundred and Thirty Seven Thousand,
Nine Hundred and Fifty Eight Cedis, Fifty Two Pesewas at the time). The
contract period was fixed at eighteen months within which the plaintiff was to practically
complete and hand over the works as set out in detailed drawings. There was
however a provision for extension of time to be granted to the plaintiff if
certain stated conditions outside the control of the plaintiff occurred and
caused delay in completion within the contract period. It was provided in the
agreement that if the plaintiff shall fail to complete and hand over the works
within the 18 months, which was stated to end on 29th December,
2004, or within such extended time granted pursuant to the provisions of the
contract, plaintiff was liable to pay liquidated and ascertained damages. The agreement
provided a formula for calculating those damages. <o:p></o:p>The 3rd d</main>