Allied Security Services Co. Limited v St. Martins Memorial Hospital (A2/232/23) [2024] GHADC 718 (13 December 2024)

IN THE KOTOBABI DISTRICT COURT “1”, BEHIND THE KOTOBABI CLUSTER OF SCHOOLS, KOTOBABI, ACCRA, HELD ON MONDAY 10th MARCH, 2025 BEFORE HER WORSHIP MAAME YAA A. KUSI-MENSAH (MS). MAGISTRATE SUIT NO. A2/232/23 ALLIED SECURITY SERVICES CO. LIMITED - PLAINTIFF P. O BOX DK 433 DARKUMAN ACCRA VRS. ST. MARTINS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL - DEFENDANT P. O BOX KB 660 KORLEBU ACCRA JUDGMENT PARTIES: Plaintiff Company represented by Emmanuel Achinah (Operations Manager) present Defendant Hospital represented by Julius Noagbe (Clinical coordinator) present COUNSEL: Francisca Esinam Adablah (Ms). for Plaintiff Company being led by Chris Baffour Awuah Esq. present Rosemary Asantewaa Ofori (Ms) for Defendant Hospital holding the brief of Hubert Sevor Esq. present PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On 17th March, 2023 Plaintiffs commenced this action with a writ and statement of claim filed at the Kaneshie District Court 2 seeking the following reliefs: Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital a) A declaration that the unilaterally termination of the Contract amounts to a breach of contract. b) An order for the payment of Nine Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢9,000.00) being service charge for the provision of guard duties for the Defendant's outfit for the month of December, 2021 and January, 2022. c) Cost inclusive of the Solicitor's fees. d) Any other relief(s) that the Honourable Court may deem fit. From the record, Defendant Hospital was absent at the earlier hearings until eventually the Kaneshie Court ordered for Plaintiff Company to file their witness statement for trial to commence on 7th March, 2024. However, before trial could take place, the suit was transferred from the Kaneshie District Court to this Court to continue with the hearing of this matter by order of the Honourable Chief Justice dated 16th January, 2024. In light of this transfer, this Court directed that Plaintiff serve Defendant with notice of the transfer and hearing notice and on 12th July 2024, and following this the Defendant finally filed a notice of intention to defend the matter together with its affidavit in defence of the action. Plaintiff Company’s witness statement was filed on 23rd May, 2024 with relevant annexures attached as evidence in support of its claims while Defendant Hospital filed its witness statement on 12th July 2024. There were no annexures attached to Defendant’s witness statement. Following the conclusion of case management, trial in this matter was finally concluded on 28th October, 2024 with respective addresses filed by either party through their counsels on 5th December, 2024 (Plaintiff’s address) and 13th December, 2024 (Defendant’s address). Plaintiff’s Case Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital It is the case of Plaintiff from its pleadings and witness statement that, it entered into a contract with the Defendant on 28th July, 2021 for the provision of security services to the Defendant's health facility located at Dansoman. As part of this agreement, the Plaintiff deployed a total number of four (4) guards of which two (2) were day guards and the other two (2) were night guards with one (1) reliever to render security services to the Defendant for the day and night shifts of twelve hours each (12 hours of day and night shift). Plaintiff indicates that subsequently, Defendant by a letter dated 12th January, 2022 terminated the contract with the Plaintiff without the mandatory one-month written notice to be served before termination can be done by either party as agreed by the parties in their contract. Accordingly, Plaintiff through its lawyers wrote to the Defendant to draw its attention to the provisions of the contract as well as the breach to same that the afore-mentioned conduct of Defendant had occasioned. The Plaintiff also drew the Defendant’s attention to the unpaid services rendered which amounted to Nine Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 9,000.00) for the provision of guards at the premises for the months of December 2021 and January 2022. The Plaintiff indicates further that despite several attempts at resolution of this matter, Defendant failed to comply with the terms of the agreement necessitating the instant action. Defendant’s Case On the other hand, the Defendant’s case is that it is a health facility located at Dansoman and confirms that it entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the 28th day of July, 2021 to acquire professional security service to secure the facility for a period of two (2) years. Defendant indicates that, as a result of the changes in management at the Defendant Hospital, the staff responsible for the execution of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant left the employ of the Defendant with all the details of the transaction. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that it wrote to terminate the Agreement with the Plaintiff on 12th January, 2022 without notice. Having made this admission of termination without notice to Plaintiff, Defendant states that it is prepared to pay the charges of Nine Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵ 9,000) for the months of December, 2021 and January, 2022 and also prepared to pay the Plaintiff one month salary in lieu of notice in an amount of Four Thousand Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH₵4,500). ISSUES Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital There were no issues expressly agreed to by the parties and set down for trial. It is therefore unsurprising that wholly different issues were presented by the respective counsels in their filed addresses. Plaintiff outlines the following issues: 1. Whether the conduct of the Defendant amounts to a breach of contract. 2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages and compensation for the declaration of the breach of contract by the Defendant? 3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Nine Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 9,000.00) being payment for services rendered to the Defendant for the months of December 2021 and January 2022. Defendant on the other hand, sets out the following issues: i. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to a relief not sought on its Writ of Summons? ii. Whether or not the Plaintiff can import new facts into an already signed Agreement?; and iii. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to cost? I have read the address of Counsel for the Defendant, and try as I may, I did not see how Plaintiff has sought to seek a relief it has not indicated in its writ nor how Plaintiff has sought to import new facts into the signed agreement between parties herein. Even if this situation was indeed so, with all due deference to Counsel for the Defendant, I found the arguments and authorities cited by Defendant in the address to be quite immaterial to the resolution of the instant matter. I will briefly comment on these observations later. In my considered view, there are only two substantial issues raised from the facts which this Court must resolve, and that is: 1) Whether there was a breach of the contract by Defendant; and 2) Whether Plaintiff ought to be awarded damages and compensation for the breach by the Defendant? A third resultant issue is: Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to cost? However the resolution of the first two issues will inevitably affect whether there will be a need for the third. Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital 1) Whether there was a breach of the contract by Defendant? It is an unquestionably well-established principle of evidential law that a party who asserts a fact assumes the responsibility of proving same. The burden of producing evidence as well as the burden of persuasion lies on both a plaintiff and defendant, and the standard of proof required of both parties in civil cases is on the “preponderance of the probabilities”. These evidential rules have been provided for by the virtue of sections 10, 11, 12 and 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). In Ababio vs. Akwasi IV [1994-1995] GBR 774 Aikins JSC expounded on this position of the law as follows: “The general principle of law is that it is the duty of a Plaintiff to prove what he alleges. In other words, it is the party who raises in his pleadings an issue essential to the success of his case who assumes the burden of proving it. The burden only shifts to the defence to lead evidence to tip the scale in his favour when on a particular issue, the Plaintiff leads some evidence to prove his claim. If the Defendant succeeds in doing this she wins, if not, she loses on that particular issue.” Similarly, in Ackah vs. Pergah Transport Ltd [2010] SCGLR 728 these evidential rules were summed up eloquently by her Ladyship Adinyira JSC where it was held that: “It is a basic principle of the law of evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility, short of which his claim may fail. The method of producing evidence is varied and it includes the testimonies of the party and material witnesses, admissible hearsay, documentary and things (often described as real evidence), without which the party might not succeed to establish the requisite degree of credibility concerning a fact in the mind of the court or tribunal of fact…. It is trite law that matters that are capable of proof must be proved by producing sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact is more reasonable than its non-existence. This is a requirement of the law on evidence under sections 10 and 11 of the Evidence Decree.” This means that ideally, whoever makes an assertion of a fact bears the burden of proving that fact by providing cogent evidence of same. In this case, that would mean that Plaintiff who is asserting their contract was breached by Defendant has the burden of proving not only that a contract existed in the first place but further that the particular conduct of Defendant was in breach of that contractual agreement. Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital The above notwithstanding, it is also the law that where a party makes an averment and that averment is not denied, then no issue is joined and there is no need for the party making the averment to lead evidence on that averment to establish same. (See the cases of Tutu vs. Gogo (Civil Appeal No 25/67, dated 28th April 1969, Court of Appeal, unreported, digested in [1969] CC 76); Fori vs. Ayerebi [1996] GLR 627 SC; Hammond vs. Amuah [1991] 1 GLR 89 at 91; and Takoradi Flour Mills vs. Samir Faris [2005-2006] SCGLR 890). Furthermore, where an opponent admits to a fact in issue, it is deemed that that fact or issue has been conceded and is no longer in contention. In such circumstances, the court can act on the admitted facts without further proof by the other party of the facts constituting the admissions. In Fynn vs. Fynn [2013-2014] SCGLR 727 at 738 the Supreme Court emphasised: “….in the case of In Re Asere Stool; Nikoi Olai Amontia IV (substituted by) Laryea Ayiku III [2005-2006] SCGLR, this court laid down the following salutary rule of law, namely that: ‘Where an adversary has admitted a fact advantageous to the cause of a party, the party does not need any better evidence to establish that fact than by relying on such an admission, which is an example of estoppel by conduct.’” (See also the learned jurist S. A. Brobbey (JSC retired) in his book, ‘Essentials of the Ghana Law of Evidence’ at pages 112-113 where he opined that the rationale for the rule on admissions is obvious because if a person admits or concedes to facts which are against his interests, there is no need to proceed further to prove those facts before such a person would be bound by the terms of those facts). The instant case borders on a contractual agreement between the parties herein and if at all there was a subsequent breach of this agreement by the Defendant. The parties both agree that there was a contractual agreement between them dated the 28th day of July, 2021 for the provision of security services. This contract was admitted in evidence as Exhibit A. It was also admitted by Defendant that the contract was to be for a duration of two years from August 2021 to August 2023 but Defendant on 12th January 2022, wrote to terminate the contract without notice contrary to the requirement to give notice per clause 7 of the agreement between the parties (see paragraphs 7 to 9 of the affidavit in support of defence and paragraphs 5 to 7 of Defendant’s witness statement). This fact was also admitted to by Defendant’s witness Mr. Addom Seme (the CEO) during trial where he stated: Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital “Q: You will also agree that you did not notify the Plaintiff before terminating the contract? A: My lady, they were notified. Q: I would like to you refer to paragraph 7 of your own witness statement. Please read it to this Honourable Court. A: Read out. Q: So reading that you will agree that you did not give us notice before terminating? A: Yes My Lady.” Further on Defendant also admitted as follows: Q: I would also like to refer you to Exhibit D1. We would like to draw your attention to the 1st paragraph of the last page. Kindly read same to this Honourable Court. A: Read out. Q: Can it not be said your attention was drawn to the breach? A: Yes my Lady. My attention was drawn to the breach. (See record of proceedings dated 28th October, 2024) It is evident thus that there is a clear admission on the part of the Defendant of a breach of the contract. In further acknowledgement of its own admission of this breach, Defendant itself has conceded that it is willing to pay the contractual charges of Nine Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢9,000.00) for the provision of guard duties in December, 2021 and January, 2022 by the Plaintiff as well as payment of Four Thousand Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (GHC 4,500) which amounts to one (1) month salary in lieu of notice. Flowing from the law elaborated above on admissions, there is no better evidence than this admission by Defendant of its own breach to the agreement between parties. I am therefore satisfied as a trier of fact that Defendant by failing to give the requisite notice prior to termination, there was a breach of the contractual agreement between the parties herein and resolve the first issue in favour of Plaintiff by holding that the conduct of Defendant amounted to a breach of the said contract between them. Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital 2) Whether Plaintiff ought to be awarded damages and compensation for the breach of contract by the Defendant? Damages are one of the remedies open to a plaintiff who suffers injury or harm as a result of the breach of contract by another, and is a sum of money claimed as compensation or awarded by a court as compensation to the plaintiff and/or claimant for some harm, loss or injury suffered by that plaintiff and/or claimant as a result of the breach of contract committed by the defendant or his agent. [See Ecobank Ghana Limited vs. Aluminium Enterprise Limited (Civil Appeal No. J4/18/2020); judgment dated 13th May, 2020 SC). With respect to the award of damages for a breach of contract, the law is that the award of general damages flows from what the law will presume to be the natural and probable consequences of a defendant’s act which constitutes a breach. Thus, unlike other types of damages, General damages arise out of inference by the law and therefore need not be specifically proved by evidence other than the fact of the breach itself. This is because the law implies general damages in every infringement of a right of a plaintiff. [See Delmas Agency Ghana Ltd vs. Food Distributors International Ltd [2007/08] 2 SCGLR 748 per holding 3]. The purpose of damages is to put the party who has suffered as a result of the breach in nearly the same position that he would have been had the other party not committed the breach or as if the contract had been performed. Damages are however not awarded to over-enrich a plaintiff far beyond his actual losses nor should a Plaintiff get far less than his actual loss [See the cases of Hadley vs. Baxendale [1854] 9 Ex. 341; Royal Dutch Airlines & Another vs. Farmex Ltd [1989-90] 2 GLR, 623 @ 625; Juxon-Smith vs. KLM Dutch Airlines [2005-2006] SCGLR 438 @ 442 per holding (5); and Charles A. Nyarko vs. Barclays Bank Ghana Ltd (Civil Appeal No. J4/38/2020), judgment dated 10th November, 2021]. Flowing from the above authorities the following principles are established regarding the award and assessment of damages in contract: 1) There must be a contract which terms have been breached; 2) There must be some loss or harm suffered (and this may include actual pecuniary loss as well as Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital non-pecuniary losses such as inconvenience and discomfort); and 3) The loss or harm suffered must not be too remote in the assessment of quantum damages to be awarded. In the instant case, the breach complained of is the failure by Defendant hospital to give notice of the termination prior to the actual termination. This notice was required per paragraph 10 of the agreement, and as I have already stated this breach is admitted to by Defendant hospital. Clearly therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to damages for this breach. The real question is what quantum of damages is to be awarded in the circumstances bearing in mind the legal principles for the award of damages I have outlined above. Defendant has stated that it is willing to pay Nine Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢9,000.00) being the service charges for the provision of guard duties in December, 2021 and January, 2022 and Four Thousand Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (GHC 4,500) in addition which amounts to one (1) month salary in lieu of notice. I noted that per the contract this monthly salary amount is actually Four Thousand Three Hundred Ghana Cedis (GHC 4,300) and not Four Thousand Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (GHC 4,500). Perhaps this additional Two Hundred Ghana Cedis is meant by Defendant hospital to serve as further compensation for the lack of notice. I cannot tell, but whatever the motive for stating the GHC 4,500, this would bring the total offer of Defendant to Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (GHC 13,500). This proposal by Defendant is quite frankly insulting. Indeed, what Defendant is seeking to do by this proposal is compensate Plaintiff with damages after all this time of only Four Thousand Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (GHC 4,500). This smacks of an absolute disregard of any consideration for the diligence invested by Plaintiff in the provision of security services for Defendant hospital by training security personnel to provide 24-hour security through its day and night security staff, making arrangements for a relieving security guard, as well as providing the personnel with uniforms and appropriate attire for the months the contract was in operation. Clearly too, this offer did not take into account the inconveniences and additional expenditure Plaintiff had to incur to firstly write directly to Defendant hospital (per a letter dated 18th January 2022, i.e. exhibit D) and then subsequently through its lawyers (per a letter dated 30th January 2023, i.e. Exhibit D1). None of these exhibits were discredited during trial. Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital Had Defendant quickly settled this matter upon service of the first demand notice by Plaintiff as far back as January 2022 then certainly it would have been more than fair for Defendant to pay only one month in lieu of the notice together with the service charges accrued for services already rendered by Plaintiff in December 2021 and January 2022. As things stand now however, when it has been more than three whole years after the debt owed to Plaintiff initially accrued in 2022, the payment of such a paltry sum of Four Thousand Five Hundred Ghana Cedis would be manifestly unjust to constitute sufficient damages in the circumstances. Having weighed the entirety of the circumstances of this case, I will hold that Plaintiff is entitled to general damages to the tune of Thirty-Five Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC 35,000). In coming to this amount I have noted the position of the Supreme Court echoed by the dictum of Kulendi JSC in the Charles A. Nyarko vs. Barclays Bank Ghana Ltd case (referred to supra), where the apex court opined: “On the other hand, where it is clear that some substantial loss has been incurred, the fact that an assessment is difficult because of the nature of the damage is no reason for awarding no damages or merely nominal damages…the fact that damages cannot be assessed with certainty does not relieve the wrong doer of the necessity of paying damages…where precise evidence is obtainable, the court naturally expects it; but where it is not, the court must do the best it can.” (emphasis mine). I also took into account the rates of interest and inflation in Ghana from 2022 till date as guided by Taylor JSC in the case of Sowah vs. Bank For Housing & Construction [1982-83] 2 GLR, 1324 where he noted: “…I am persuaded by the apparent modern approach of the English courts to the view that since the money was due at a point in time and it is now being paid at a subsequent point in time, the interest which the money attracts during the period…is, inter alia, a fair yardstick by which to measure to some extent the damages so suffered by the appellant”; See also Boasiako vs. Ghana Timber Marketing Board [1982- 83] 2 GLR 824, HC]. From the data provided by the Bank of Ghana and Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/447576/inflation-rate-in-ghana/) websites, I found the interest and inflation rates over the last three years averaged 26.5% and 31% respectively, and these rates were taken into consideration. I also bore in mind the non-pecuniary losses that Plaintiff has undoubtedly had to bear including the inconveniences and stress that Defendant has put on Plaintiff Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital in chasing after this claim from 2022 till date. I believe this amount to be fair bearing in mind the principles on the assessment and award of damages enumerated above particularly that a plaintiff is not to be overly enriched nor get far less than his loss when being awarded damages. I will conclude on this issue of award of damages by repeating the sentiments of the Supreme Court in the case of Muller vs. Home Finance Ltd. [2012] SCGLR 1234, where the eminent jurist Dotse JSC emphasised: “Perhaps it will not be out of place at this juncture to reiterate the fact that, if it is desirable for people to use contracts in the business world to regulate and control their dealings with one another, then it is the duty of the law courts to give teeth to these contracts to enable them bite and bite very hard when the contracts are [dis]honoured in the breach by the parties. It has recently been stated that there are some babies who have very strong teeth who can bite very hard. If that is so, then adults who enter into legally enforceable contracts, conscious of the consequences whenever there is a breach must be held accountable for any such lapses.” Thus, on the second issue of damages, I hold that Plaintiff is entitled to general damages and award Plaintiff the said general damages to the tune of Thirty-Five Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC 35,000). 3) Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to cost? Having resolved the first and second issues in favour of Plaintiff, there is predictably a need to deal with the issue of costs. With respect to costs, I have had regard to the nature of the agreement between the parties i.e. the fact that the agreement is business-related in nature. I have also had regard to the time spent in prosecuting the case, and the reasonable legal and other incidental expenses such as filing fees and transportation costs Plaintiff inevitably would have incurred in prosecuting this case. With the above in mind, I will award Plaintiff costs of Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC 10,000). From the total sums awarded, this brings the final judgment debt of Defendant to Fifty-Four Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC 54,000). Observations on Issues raised/Addresses I indicated earlier that I would comment briefly on the issues and authorities cited in the address of Counsel for the Defendant. Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital I will make those comments at this stage. By way of refreshing the memory, two of the key issues raised by Counsel for the Defendant are: i. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to a relief not sought on its Writ of Summons?; and ii. Whether or not the Plaintiff can import new facts into an already signed Agreement? What I found quite troubling from address of Counsel for the Defendant was that the authorities cited were either wrongly quoted or were actually in contradiction to the submission it sought to support. For instance it was argued that, “It is a settled principle that the court would not grant an Order to be issued unless same was expressly sought for as a relief. See the case of DZOTEPE VRS HAHORMENE III & ORS (1984-86) 1GLR 289 at 292. The Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal No. J4/10/2019 entitled EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED VRS TOP KINGS J ENTERPRISES LTD & 4 ORS (unreported judgment dated the 16th day of December, 2020) at paragraph 8(e) where Tanko Amadu JSC held as follows: ‘since the appellant failed to amend its reliefs by the inclusion of a relief for possession after it had obtained leave to do so the leave granted becomes void ipso facto and there was therefore no claim for possession to make the Trial Judge make any order for possession. This order is therefore null and void.’” (see page 5 of the Defendant’s written address). In the first place, and in actual fact, HL Tanko Amadu JSC made no such pronouncement in the said case of Empire Builders Limited vs. TopKings Enterprises Ltd & 4 Ors (Civil Appeal No. J4/10/2019; judgment dated 16th December 2020). The quotation attributed to HL Tanko Amadu as a holding was not actually a holding or even a quotation by him, but a reiteration of the decision that the Court of Appeal had reached in that case. It was this position reached by the Court of Appeal (CoA) that the Plaintiff was seeking to overturn in the Supreme Court. His Lordship Tanko Amadu JSC in listing the various holdings of the CoA when they came to their decision thus stated: “The Court of Appeal after hearing the appeal, held as follows….(holding e) [s]ince the Appellant failed to amend its reliefs by the inclusion of a relief for possession after it had obtained leave to do so, the leave granted thus became void ipso facto and there was therefore no claim for possession to enable the Trial Judge make any order for possession. The order for possession is therefore null and void and thereby nullified.” Aside from the fact therefore that the above quote was not the holding of the SC as indicated by Counsel for the Defendant, the said Empire Builders case (supra) was actually cited in support of Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital Counsel for Defendant’s submission that a court would not grant an Order to be issued unless same was expressly sought for as a relief. And yet a reading of the same authorities she provided gives a different impression. Coming again to the Empire Builders case (supra) this is what Tanko Amadu JSC actually said with respect to that issue: “We are aware of the decisions of this court in the Gihoc Refrigeration and Household Ltd. v. Hanna Assi (supra) and Muller v. Home Finance Ltd. (supra) cases cited by the Plaintiff’s counsel, where in ensuring substantial justice, this court granted reliefs not specifically claimed and endorsed. Indeed, the same thinking was applied in the case of Republic v. High Court Kumasi Ex-parte Boateng [2007-2008] SCGLR 404. But all the cases referred to above are not applicable to the circumstances of this case where the Trial Court granted leave to amend but the Plaintiff elected not to file the pursuant process. The Trial Court at that stage was bound by its own orders and would not have properly indulged the Plaintiff to choose any other form of amendment it preferred which is not supported by evidence from the record of appeal. See the case of Ntrakwa (Decd) In Re Bogoso Gold Ltd. v. Ntrakwa [2007-2008] SCGLR 389. Consequently, we find no merit in the Plaintiff’s submission on this issue. The Court of Appeal cannot be said to have acted in error when it declared the decree for possession in favour of the Plaintiff a nullity not having been founded on a properly amended relief.” (emphasis mine). The above means clearly that this position argued by Counsel that the court cannot grant a relief not specifically endorsed cannot be true since the apex court of this land has itself in the Empire Builders case and in the other cases it quoted, held that a relief not specifically claimed and endorsed can be granted in ensuring substantial justice. Indeed, the reason the SC upheld the CoA decision in the Empire Builders case was not because the court could not grant a relief not specifically endorsed, rather the SC found that that the circumstances of that case was not on all fours with the previous positions where such reliefs not specifically claimed or endorsed were nonetheless granted by the court. Similarly, the case of Dzotepe vs. Hahormene III & Ors [1984-86] 1GLR 289 was also wrongly cited in my view in support of the submission that a relief which was not endorsed but granted by a court will be void. In actual fact, in the said Dzotepe vs. Hahormene III case, the court found the writ of possession seeking to enforce the judgment void not because it had not been stated as a relief but because the judgment itself did not grant an order for possession in the first place and rather merely granted a declaratory relief. The court stated thus: “In so far as material, that writ merely sought a Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital declaration that the judgment obtained by the applicant's predecessor in 1953 was null and void on the ground that it was obtained by ‘fraud, misrepresentation and perversity’…. It is elementary that the writ of possession is only issued to enforce a judgment for possession of land. If there is no judgment for possession, there plainly can be no jurisdiction to order the issuance of a writ of possession. We must therefore agree that that writ was a nullity and so were the steps taken on the strength of it. Therefore, we cannot hold that there was a valid execution….” At the risk of belabouring the point, and particularly with respect to the first and second issues raised by Counsel for the Defendant, I will again state firmly that these issues were undoubtedly not material to this case as they did not arise from the pleadings. But even if they were indeed material, then the authorities mentioned neither supported the issues nor were they appropriately cited and applied. I have taken the time to comment on this to emphasise the point quite plainly that although it is the duty of lawyers to fearlessly defend the interests of their clients, in doing so they are expected to exercise every diligence not to mislead the courts either deliberately or out of a lack of due care and attention when presenting principles of law. Conclusion In conclusion, having found in favour of the Plaintiff, I will hold that Plaintiff is entitled to all its reliefs. Furthermore, for the avoidance of doubt, and in summary of the judgment herein, judgment is entered in favour of Plaintiff as follows: 1) On relief a: This Court holds that the unilateral termination of the Contract by Defendant without the requisite notice to Plaintiff amounts to a breach of the contract between the parties herein. 2) On relief b: The Court holds that Plaintiff is entitled to an order for the payment of Nine Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢9,000.00) being service charges for the provision of guard duties for the Defendant's outfit for the months of December, 2021 and January, 2022. Defendant is Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital accordingly ordered to pay the said amount of Nine Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢9,000.00) to Plaintiff. 3) On relief c: The Court holds that Plaintiff is entitled to costs inclusive of the Solicitor's fees. Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded costs of Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC 10,000). 4) On relief d (being any other relief(s) that the Honourable Court may deem fit): the Court awards Plaintiff general damages of Thirty-Five Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC 35,000). This accordingly brings the total judgment debt of Defendant owed to Plaintiff to Fifty-Four Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC 54,000). Plaintiff is further awarded interest at the prevailing bank rate on the total judgment debt until date of final payment in accordance with the Court (Award of Interest and Post Judgement Interest) Rules, 2005 C. I 52. SGD. MAAME YAA A. KUSI-MENSAH (MS). MAGISTRATE Allied Securities vs. St. Martins Memorial Hospital 15