Brasille Engineering & Technology v Tako Construction (A2/08/24) [2025] GHACC 55 (28 April 2025)

Brasille Engineering & Technology v Tako Construction (A2/08/24) [2025] GHACC 55 (28 April 2025)

The court found that while there was an implied duty on Plaintiff to retrieve the scaffolding, Plaintiff made reasonable efforts but was prevented by Defendant's actions. Defendant retained the equipment beyond the agreed period and likely benefited from its continued possession, constituting a breach of contract. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding rental sum, interest, return of the equipment, general damages, costs, and solicitor's fees.

Citation
[2025] GHACC 55
Parties
Plaintiff: Brasille Engineering & Technology; Defendant: Tako Construction
Court
Circuit Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
28 April 2025
Case Number
A2/08/24
Procedural Posture
Civil (contractual Dispute) / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Rental Agreements, Damages, Recovery of Property
Source Language
English
Contract Law Commercial Law Breach of Contract Rental Agreements Damages Recovery of Property

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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brasille Engineering & Technology

Plaintiff

Tako Construction

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contractual Dispute) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was the duty of Plaintiff to retrieve its scaffolding machine after the contractual period
  2. 2 Whether Defendant used the scaffolding machine on another project after the contractual period
  3. 3 Whether Plaintiff ought to be awarded damages and compensation for the breach of contract by the Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while there was an implied duty on Plaintiff to retrieve the scaffolding, Plaintiff made reasonable efforts but was prevented by Defendant's actions. Defendant retained the equipment beyond the agreed period and likely benefited from its continued possession, constituting a breach of contract. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding rental sum, interest, return of the equipment, general damages, costs, and solicitor's fees.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Plaintiff GHC 56,300 as outstanding rental sum
  • Defendant to pay interest on GHC 56,300 from 16th August, 2023 until final payment at prevailing bank rate