Essuman Vrs Aboso Goldfields Ltd [2019] GHASC 86 (11 December 2019)

Essuman Vrs Aboso Goldfields Ltd [2019] GHASC 86 (11 December 2019)

The plaintiff failed to strictly prove the claims for cost of tailings and outstanding haulage charges, and there was no evidence of wrongful termination of the contract as supplies were to be made only upon request. The lower courts erred in awarding the sums claimed without sufficient evidence. The appeal is allowed and the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Citation
[2019] GHASC 86
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Ekow Essuman (Deceased) Substituted by Ruth Essuman (Mrs), Bodja Essuman & Nana Asare Bediako; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Aboso Goldfields Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
11 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal allowed; plaintiff's claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Special Damages, Pleadings, Burden of Proof, Evidence, Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Special Damages Pleadings Burden of Proof Evidence Damages

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ekow Essuman (Deceased) Substituted by Ruth Essuman (Mrs), Bodja Essuman & Nana Asare Bediako

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Aboso Goldfields Limited

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff proved entitlement to the sums claimed for cost of tailings, outstanding haulage charges, and damages for breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether the lower courts erred in awarding the sums claimed without sufficient evidence
  3. 3 Whether the contract was wrongfully terminated by the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to strictly prove the claims for cost of tailings and outstanding haulage charges, and there was no evidence of wrongful termination of the contract as supplies were to be made only upon request. The lower courts erred in awarding the sums claimed without sufficient evidence. The appeal is allowed and the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; plaintiff's claims dismissed

Orders

  • Orders of the Court of Appeal set aside
  • Plaintiff's claims as endorsed on the writ of summons dismissed