Nyarko v Design Technology Institute (A11/121/23) [2025] GHADC 173 (24 June 2025)

Nyarko v Design Technology Institute (A11/121/23) [2025] GHADC 173 (24 June 2025)

The Defendant did not provide written notification of any defects within five days of delivery as required by the SLA, and thus was deemed to have accepted the website. The Defendant's subsequent termination was in breach of the SLA, entitling the Plaintiff to the outstanding contract sum, interest, damages, and costs.

Citation
[2025] GHADC 173
Parties
Plaintiff: Brian Owusu Nyarko; Defendant: Design Technology Institute
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
24 June 2025
Case Number
A11/121/23
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Service Level Agreement, Breach of Contract, Damages, Termination of Contract
Source Language
English
Contract Law Service Level Agreement Breach of Contract Damages Termination of Contract

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

Parties

Brian Owusu Nyarko

Plaintiff

Design Technology Institute

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant lawfully terminated the Service Level Agreement (SLA)
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff discharged his obligations under the SLA
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's refusal to pay the outstanding balance constitutes a breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant did not provide written notification of any defects within five days of delivery as required by the SLA, and thus was deemed to have accepted the website. The Defendant's subsequent termination was in breach of the SLA, entitling the Plaintiff to the outstanding contract sum, interest, damages, and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff

Orders

  • Declaration that the Plaintiff discharged his obligations under the contract prior to the Defendant’s attempt at cancelling the contract.
  • Declaration that the Defendant’s attempt to cancel the contract in April 2023 after the Plaintiff discharged his obligations is invalid.