Environmental Development Group Limited Vrs Provident Insurance Co. Ltd. [2020] GHASC 116 (18 March 2020)

Environmental Development Group Limited Vrs Provident Insurance Co. Ltd. [2020] GHASC 116 (18 March 2020)

The failure of the Contract Administrator to grant a reasonable extension of time constituted a fundamental breach of Clause 19, entitling the plaintiff to treat the contract as discharged and claim general damages. The plaintiff failed to strictly prove special damages and quantum meruit. The 3rd defendant's counterclaim fails as it repudiated the contract. The 1st defendant is not liable under the guarantee or performance bonds due to concurrent delay and the prevention principle.

Citation
Environmental Development Group Limited Vrs Provident Insurance Co. Ltd. [2020] GHASC 116 (18 March 2020)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Environmental Development Group Limited; 1st Defendant/respondent/respondent: Provident Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2nd Defendant: Attorney General; 3rd Defendant/appellant/appellant: Ghana Education Trust Fund
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
18 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Extension of Time, Liquidated Damages, Quantum Meruit, Counterclaim, Performance Bond, Advance Payment Guarantee, Frustration
Source Language
eng
Contract Law Construction Law Breach of Contract Extension of Time Liquidated Damages Quantum Meruit Counterclaim Performance Bond +2 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 7 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Environmental Development Group Limited

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Provident Insurance Co. Ltd.

1st Defendant/respondent/respondent

Attorney General

2nd Defendant

Ghana Education Trust Fund

3rd Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract was still binding at the time of purported termination
  2. 2 Whether failure to extend time constituted a fundamental breach
  3. 3 Entitlement to special and general damages

Ratio Decidendi

The failure of the Contract Administrator to grant a reasonable extension of time constituted a fundamental breach of Clause 19, entitling the plaintiff to treat the contract as discharged and claim general damages. The plaintiff failed to strictly prove special damages and quantum meruit. The 3rd defendant's counterclaim fails as it repudiated the contract. The 1st defendant is not liable under the guarantee or performance bonds due to concurrent delay and the prevention principle.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Counterclaim of 3rd defendant dismissed
  • Plaintiff's relief (a) granted: 1st defendant perpetually restrained from paying on guarantee bonds