Makab Company Ltd Vrs Bragha Construction Ltd [2023] GHASC 9 (22 February 2023)

Makab Company Ltd Vrs Bragha Construction Ltd [2023] GHASC 9 (22 February 2023)

The Supreme Court (majority) held that the trial court's award of damages was within jurisdiction and appropriate given the circumstances, as specific performance was not feasible due to third party interests. The appellate court erred by substituting its discretion for that of the trial court and awarding damages based on current market value without sufficient evidentiary basis. However, the trial court's damages were increased to adequately compensate the plaintiff for the defendant's breach and conduct.

Citation
[2023] GHASC 9
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Mokab Company Ghana Limited; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Bragha Construction Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
22 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal orders set aside; trial court orders restored and varied.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages, Specific Performance, Constructive Trust, Restitution, Measure of Damages, Appellate Review, Remedies for Breach of Contract
Source Language
English
Contract Law Equity Trusts Breach of Contract Damages Specific Performance Constructive Trust Restitution +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mokab Company Ghana Limited

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Bragha Construction Limited

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering payment of 70% of the current market value of the land to the plaintiff as damages for breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether the trial court's award of damages was adequate and appropriate
  3. 3 Whether specific performance was an appropriate remedy given third party interests in the land

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court (majority) held that the trial court's award of damages was within jurisdiction and appropriate given the circumstances, as specific performance was not feasible due to third party interests. The appellate court erred by substituting its discretion for that of the trial court and awarding damages based on current market value without sufficient evidentiary basis. However, the trial court's damages were increased to adequately compensate the plaintiff for the defendant's breach and conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal orders set aside; trial court orders restored and varied.

Orders

  • Refund of GH₵450,000 and GH₵216,000 by defendant to plaintiff with interest at Bank of Ghana rates from due dates.
  • Payment of GH₵1,000,000 as damages by defendant to plaintiff in place of previous GH₵100,000 award.