M/S KEHENTSON COMPANY (C2/049/23) [2024] GHAHC 229 (12 July 2024)

1 | P a ge IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL DIVISION ‘’A’’ HELD AT SUNYANI ON FRIDAY THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE HARRY ACHEAMPONG-OPOKU ESQ. SUIT NO. C2/049/23 M/S KEHENTSON COMPANY PLAINTIFF LIMITED SUNYANI VRS: THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL DEFENDANT THROUGH ITS OFFICE AT SUNYANI JUDGEMENT The plaintiff in this case claim against the Defendant, the following reliefs; (1) Recovery of the total amount of Ghc1,188,022.76 being the outstanding amounts payable under the certificates as follows; (a) Ghc537, 386.32 being an outstanding amount and payment certificate Number 2 due and payable to the plaintiff for the execution of a contract involving Bitumen surfacing of the Duayaw-Nkwanta – Adagaming - Santase Feeder Road (10.0 km) with certificate Number 2 and with contract Number DFR BAR/GOG/RF/RT/SURF/2016/01 and which said amount became payable in 2 | P a ge November 2017 but which said amount the defendant has failed/refused to pay despite several demands. (b) Ghc592, 200.05 being outstanding amount and payment certificate Number 3 due and payable to the plaintiff for the execution of a contract involving Bitumen surfacing of the Duayaw-Nkwanta – Adagaming - Santase Feeder Road(10.0km)with contract Number DFR/BAR/GOG/RF/RT/SURF/2016/01 and which said amount became payable in December 2018 but which said amount the defendant has failed/refused to pay despite several demands. (c) Ghc58, 436.39 being outstanding amount and payment certificate Number 4 due and payable to the plaintiff contract involving Bitumen surfacing of the Duayaw Nkwanta –Adagaming – Santase Feeder Road (10.0 km) with certificate number 4 and with contract number DFR/BAR/GOG/RF/RT/SURF/2016/01 and which said amount became payable in February, 2021 but which said amount the defendant has failed/refused to pay despite several demands. 2) Interest on the amounts stated in relief 1(a) from 02/11/2017, 1 (b) from 22/12/2018and 1 (c) from 27/02/2021 at the prevailing commercial rate until the date of final payment. (3) 10% cost on the amount contained in relief 1 supra including legal fees. Facts of case It is the case of the plaintiff that the Government of Ghana awarded it contract (Bitumen Surfacing of Duayaw Nkwanta – Adagaming –Santase Feeder Road (10.0 km) with contract Number DFR/BAR/GOG/RF/RT/SURF/2016/01) through the Ministry of Roads and Highways and the Department of Feeder Roads. Plaintiff further contends that it had duly executed its side of the contract and following that, payment certificates were raised in its favour by Department of Feeder Roads in 3 | P a ge respect of the contract and same were forwarded to the Road Fund Secretariat for payment. Plaintiff also says that despite going through all the necessary requirement for the payment of the various amounts borne out in the payment certificates raised in its favour by the Department of Feeder Roads, the Government of Ghana has failed/refused to pay it the outstanding amount as endorsed on the writ of summons. According to the plaintiff the following payment certificates which certificate the amounts plaintiff was certified to be paid which the Government of Ghana has refused to pay as follows; (a) Payment certificate number 2 for the execution of contract involving Bitumen surfacing of the Duayaw Nkwanta – Adagaming – Santase Feeder Road as at 02/11/2017 the outstanding amount due and payable to the plaintiff stood at Ghc537,326.32. (b) Payment certificate Number 3 for the execution of a contract involving Bitumen surfacing of the Duayaw Nkwanta - Adagaming – Santase Feeder Road and as at 22/12/2018, the outstanding amount due and payable to the plaintiff stood at Ghc592,200.05. (c) Payment certificate number 4 for the execution of a contract involving Bitumen surfacing of the Duayaw Nkwanta – Adagaming – Santasi Feeder Road and as at 27/02/2021 the due and payable to the plaintiff stood at Ghc58,436.39. It must be noted that the plaintiff in claiming the various amounts as indicated in various certificates issue from the Government of Ghana caused a Notice to be served as required by law of its right to sue the state in civil claim in respect of the various amounts indicated supra. It also on record that when the Defendant entered appearance plaintiff filed Motion on Notice of summary judgement indicating that defendant has no defence. 4 | P a ge However, defendant filed statement of Defence which indicated that, it has defence to the said plaintiff’s claim and by so doing joined issues with plaintiff and therefore the said Motion on Notice for the summary judgement by the plaintiff was struck out as withdrawn. Meanwhile in the course of proceedings plaintiff amended its writ of summon And the statement of claim to reflect its current reliefs that it is claiming. It is the case of the Defendant that, in order to commence an action against the state, the plaintiff was enjoined to have registered its intention at least 3o days before the commencement of the action which was mandatory requirement. However, according to the defendant plaintiff having failed to have given the said 30 days’ Notice the action ought to have been stayed for the plaintiff to comply with this legal requirement which is prerequisite is issuing this action against the state. Defendant further contended that the relevant Ministry and state Agencies are mandated to follow an approved governmental bureaucratic payment procedure before payment can be made. And that such procedure entails the relevant state agency which in this case is the Department of Feeder Roads Sunyani submitting interim payment certificates to the Regional coordinating council of the Region for approval of same by the Regional Director and the Regional Minister. Thereafter, following the approval, the payment certificates are sent to Department of Feeder Roads for onward submission to head office in Accra for review and approval before submission to requite Ministry which in this suit is the ministry of Roads and Highways for further consideration, review and approval. Following this review and consideration by the Ministry of Roads and Highways. The certificates are then submitted to the Ghana Road Funds secretariat before payment can be affected. 5 | P a ge And that it was a mandatory that all governmental construction contracts go through this administrative procedure before payments can be effected which the plaintiff is aware of same. The defendant finally contended that plaintiff is rather seeking to take advantage of this procedure to claim monies for no job done or monies in far excess of what is due it. Defendant also contended and pray for the matter to be dealt with within its merits to address all issues therein satisfactorily and bring finality to the matter. Hence at the close of pleadings the following issues were set down for determination in this matter namely; 1(a) whether or not the contracts mentioned in reliefs 1(a) 1(b) and 1(c) as contained in the statement of claim and as endorsed on the writ of summons were awarded by the Government of Ghana (GOG) through the Department of Feeder Roads under the Ministry of Roads and Highways. (b) Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to be paid the amounts stated in reliefs 1(a) 1(b) and 1(c) as endorsed on the writ of summons. (2) Whether or not the plaintiff went through the administrative procedure required by government contracts before payments could be effected. Although these 3 issues were raised for trial. I need to reiterate the principle that a primary fact that a trial judge might find as having been proved to his satisfaction were those necessary to establish a claim of a party. And as a general rule, the court was not bound to make findings of fact in respect of irrelevant matters on which parties had led evidence when such findings would not assist in the determination of 6 | P a ge the crucial issues in controversy - see the case of Domfe Vrs.Adu (1984 - 86) 1 GLR 653 where Abban J.A. (as he then was) as follows; “…….to his mind which issues were relevant were those that could disposed of the case one way or the other.” Therefore, what issues were relevant and essential was a matter of law entirely for the judge to determine. See Fidelity Investment Advisors Vrs. Aboagye Atta (2003 - 2005) 2 GLR 188 CA. In the light of the above stated law, I intend to consider only the most crucial issues that to me, are central to the determination of controversy between the parties herein. Indeed, issue (a) listed supra, for eg. Can hardly described as relevant as it is undisputed that there existed such an agreement between the parties. Indeed, by paragraph 3 of defendant witness statement, that fact was admitted. Consequently, no such issue arises at all. The most crucial issues arising out of the pleadings therefore, are. (b) whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to be paid the amounts stated in reliefs 1 (a) 1(b) and 1(c) as endorsed on writ of summons. (c) whether or not the plaintiff went through the administrative procedure required by governmental construction contracts before payments could be affected. Resolution of Issues As I proceed to evaluate the nature of the evidence adduced at the trial. I need to re- echo the general position of the law on proof as aptly stated by Kpegah J.A. (as he then was) in the case of Zabrama Vrs. Segbedzi (1991) 2 GLR 221 @ 246 wherein he stated as follows; 7 | P a ge “…… a person who makes an averment or assertion, which is denied by his opponent, has a burden to establish that his averment or assertion is true. And he does not discharge this burden unless he leads admissible and credible evidence from which the fact or facts he asserts can properly and safely inferred. The nature of each averment or assertion determines the degree and nature of burden” Now, by section 11 (4) and 12 of the Evidence Act of 1975 (NRCD 323) the standard of proof in all civil cases is one on “a balance of probabilities” The Judicial approval to sections 11 and 12 of the Evidence Act has been stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Adwubeng Vrs. Domfe (1996 -97) SC GLR 660 @ 662 where the court stated that; “By sections 11 (4) and 12 of the Evidence Act of 1975 (NRCD 323) the standard of proof by preponderance of probabilities no exceptions were made. In the light of the provisions of the Evidence Act, NRCD 323, cases which held that proof in title to land required proof beyond reasonable doubt no longer represented the present state of the law”. Hence it behooves on the plaintiff as the one claiming against the defendant to lead a cogent and reasonable evidence which should be measured with the standard of proof in civil cases that is proof by balance of probabilities and nothing else. Therefore, I intend to start with issue (b) that is; “whether or not plaintiff is entitled to be paid the amounts stated in reliefs 1 (a) (b) and (c) endorsed, in the writ of summons since it was plaintiff who alleges, that he is entitled to be paid by the defendant on the work so far done which culminated in the generation of reliefs 1 (a) (b) and (c) must lead evidence to that effect, hence it is said that he who alleges must prove his case call one witness, who gave 8 | P a ge evidence for the plaintiff, through his witness statement filed in this court and also tendered exhibits A, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 A6, and A7”. According to plaintiffs before it issued the writ of summons against the defendant it wrote to the Attorney General of its intention to take a civil action against the Government of Ghana in view of the government failure to pay the plaintiff monies for work done for the government as a result of the contract entered between it and the government. Indeed, this according to the plaintiff was done to fulfil section 10 (1) of the state proceedings Act of 1998 (Act 555). However, when the mandatory 30 days’ notice expired without any response from the government, it instituted the above action against the government to recover the said contract sum. From the pleadings, it is clear that plaintiff was awarded a contract by the Government of Ghana for Bitumen Surfacing of the Duayaw Nkwanta - Adagaming – Santasi Feeder Road about 10.0km with contract Number DFR/BAR/GOG/RF/RT/SURF/2016/01. Indeed, the said Road Bitumen surfacing contract was reduced into a written contract which was executed between plaintiff and the government of Ghana. See exhibit ‘A’. According to the plaintiff it duly executed its side of the contract and following that payment certificates were raised in its favour by the Department of Feeder Roads in respect of the work done in respect of the contract and same was forwarded to the Ghana Road Fund secretariat for payment. Nevertheless, despite going through all the necessary requirements for the payment of the various amounts borne out of the payment certificates raised in its favour by the Department of Feeder Roads. 9 | P a ge The Government has refused or failed to pay the plaintiff contrary to the contract agreement it entered between it and the government of Ghana. According to the plaintiff’s the following payment certificates which certify the amounts the plaintiff was certified to be paid by Government of Ghana, which it has refused to pay are as follows; (a) Payment certificate number 2 for the Execution of the said Bitumen surfacing of Duayaw Nkwanta - Adagaming – Santasi Feeder Road and as at 22/11/2017 the outstanding amount due and payable to the plaintiff stood at Ghc537,386.32 – see exhibit A3 and A6. (b) Payment certificate number 3 for the execution of contract of Bitumen surfacing of Duayaw Nkwanta - Adagaming –Santasi Feeder Road and as at 22/12/2017 the outstanding amount due and payment to the plaintiff stood at Ghc892,200.05. See exhibit A4 and A6. (c) Payment certificate number 4 for the Execution of a contract involving Bitumen surfacing of the Duayaw Nkwanta - Adagaming – Santasi Feeder Road and as at 27th February 2021 the outstanding amount due and payable to the plaintiff stood at Ghc58,436.39. See exhibits A5 and A6. In sum plaintiff avers that the government of Ghana owes it a total sum of Ghc1,188,022.76 which the government of has refused to pay in spite of several demands on the government to pay the said amount. According to the defendant, per the contract executed between the Defendant and the plaintiff, the Department of Feeder Roads only raises interim payment certificates when certain aspects of the contract are performed. After going through several stages for approval. The interim payment certificates are forwarded to the Ghana Road Fund 10 | P a ge Secretariat for payment. It is worth noting that payment on the interim payment certificate can be made by the Ministry of finance or the Road Fund Secretariat. According to the Defendant the plaintiff is fully aware of this bureaucratic process which ought to be followed before any payment can be made and that the plaintiff consented to same when executed its contract with the Government. Furthermore, the Defendant states that plaintiff has not completed the said project and in any case as per the said contract agreement, the plaintiff ought to have brought the matter for arbitration instead of going to court first. Hence, plaintiff action was brought in bad faith. It is a general rule, that no bargain shall be upset, which is the result of ordinary interplay of forces where parties have set themselves to contract and have reduced their intention into writing they are bound by terms of contract. Now, to solve issue (b) one have to look at the contract executed between the parties, that is exhibit ‘A’ in respect of payment of work done in fact section 3 of the contract Agreement states as follows; “The Employer hereby covenants to pay the contractor in consideration of the execution and completion of the works and remedying of defects wherein the contract price or such other sum as may become payable under the provisions of the contract at the times and in the manner prescribed by the contract”. Although the law is that, facts recited in a written document are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties to the instrument or their successors-in- interest and no extrinsic evidence is permissible to vary the contract – see the case of Wilson Vrs Brobbey (1974) 1 GLR 250. Also see section 254 of Evidence Act of 1975 (NRXD 323). 11 | P a ge However, in our instance situation a critical and a clinical look at exhibit ‘A’ does not provide in manner and time in which contract sum raised to be paid, although it talks about the sums to be paid at times and in the manner prescribed by the contract. However, a critical look at exhibit ‘A’ does not provide any provision to that effect neither was there any addendum added to the contract reflecting same. Hence in the interest of equity and fairness I would admit any extrinsic evidence that will help the court to arrive at reasonable conclusion. Fortunately, this extrinsic evidence was provided by the parties themselves. In paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 of the Defendant statement of Defence states as follows; (9) The defendant also states that the relevant Ministry and state Agency with who in plaintiff alleges to have a cause of action is mandated to follow on approved governmental bureaucratic procedure before any payment can be made, a process the plaintiff is very much aware before consented to same by accepting the contract. (10) The defendant adds to the preceding paragraph that this procedure entails that the relevant state agency in this suit being the Department of Feeder Road (DFR) Sunyani submits interim payment. Certificates to the Regional Coordinating Council of the Brong Ahafo Regional Director and the Regional Minister. (11) Further that following this approval, the payment certificates are then sent back to DFR for onward submission to the head office in Accra for review and approval before submission to the requisite Ministry which in this suit is the Ministry of Roads and Highways for further consideration review and approval. (12) That following this review and consideration by the consideration by the Ministry of Roads and Highways the certificates are then submitted to the Ghana Road fund Secretariat before payment can be effected. 12 | P a ge (13) The defendant states that it is mandatory that all governmental contracts go through this administrative procedure before payments can be effected to an independent contractor and plaintiff is well aware of this procedure. It must be noted that plaintiff confirms the said procedure. Although by its defence, plaintiff has not gone through the said procedure and therefore, the plaintiff suit against the government was brought in bad faith. This the plaintiff has vehemently denied and avers that, indeed he was aware of the said bureaucratic procedure and that he had gone through them, yet the government has failed to pay him. A critical look at exhibits ‘A3’ ‘A4’ and ‘A5’ shows that the plaintiff had indeed gone through the said bureaucratic procedure culminating in the preparation of ‘A’ which is bill of payment, yet the government has refused to pay the plaintiff contrary to government own position. Indeed, during the cross-examination of Mr. James Oppong the Regional Manager of the Department of Feeder Roads who gave evidence for the defendant, this is what ensued; Q. Mr. Oppong would you agree with me that there is a process the plaintiff goes through when an amount in respect of contract given to the plaintiff becomes due for payment. A. That is so. Q. Plaintiff has raised interim certificate is that not so. A. Yes, my lord. Q. The interim payment certificates are then forwarded to Road Fund Secretariat 13 | P a ge for payment. A. Yes, my lord that is the process. Q. Take look at you own documents that is statement of Bill from Roads Fund Secretariat in respect of the plaintiff. A. Yes, my lord. Q. Also have a look at your interim payment certificate, that is your exhibit ‘2’. You would agree with me that, that exhibit ‘1’ of interim payment certificate raised by the plaintiff. A. Yes, my lord. Q. When there is delayed payment and interim payment certificate is raised. Is there any time frame within which a delayed payment is to be paid? A. Yes, my lord. Q. What is the time frame or period. A. 90 days. Q. After the 90 days, if the amount is not paid it attracts, interest on same is that not so. A. Yes, my lord. However, it must be noted that plaintiff’s interim payment certificates were raised between 2017 and 2021, up to date it has not been paid with respect to then said interim payment certificates, despite the fact that the 90 days delayed span has long has long elapsed. 14 | P a ge Defendant further says in paragraph 6 of it witness statement are evidence through Mr. James Oppong who gave evidence for the defendant that the plaintiff has not completed the said project, indeed, this evidence by the defendant is most intriguing, because, the said interim payment certificates were generated and signed by him as the Regional Manager of Feeder roads. The question if indeed the plaintiff did not complete the said project how come that he signed the said interim payment certificates. Indeed, this clear shows that Mr. James Oppong was being economical with the truth. During the cross-examination of Mr. James Oppong on the issue of non-completion of the project. This is what emerged; Q. In your paragraph 6 of the witness statement you stated that the plaintiff has not completed the said project. A. My lord, I did state that. Q. Mr. Oppong do you have evidence before this Honourable Court that the plaintiff had not completed the said project. A. Yes, my lord we can get the evidence from Ahafo Region. Q. I am suggesting to you that, there is no such evidence that is why you failed to attach same to your witness statement. A. No, my lord I disagree with him. However, the law is that, where corroborative evidence must exist, the court expects a party who makes an averment (which other side denies) to call such corroborative evidence in support of his case - see holding 4 of the case of Majorlagbe Vrs Larbi & Ors (1959) GLR 190 @191. 15 | P a ge Hence a mere repetition of the said assertion by the Defendant that plaintiff did not complete the said project without any corroborative evidence was nothing but mere repetition of assertion which had been denied by the other party. Finally, according to the Defendant, there was an arbitration clause in the contract Agreement that requires any of the parties to the said contract agreement to refer to arbitration any issue that may arise from the said contract. And therefore plaintiff ought to have sent the matter or referred it to arbitration as indicated in the said contract agreement. Although the plaintiff denies such an existence of Arbitration clause in the said contract Agreement that is exhibit “A” nevertheless the defendant was insisting on the existence of such arbitration clause in exhibit “A”. This is what Mr. James Oppong who gave evidence for the Defendant said during cross-examination on the issue of arbitration. Q. It is never correct that, there is any contract between the parties to refer any issues arising from the contract to arbitration. A. No, my lord I disagree with him. Meanwhile a critical scrutiny of exhibit ‘A’ that is the contract Agreement executed between the parties did not show any arbitration clause in the said contract Agreement. In fact, in the case of Victoria Annang Vrs. Emoho Trading Ghana Limited (2017) 109 GMJ. Holding 1 @127 The court held that; “Court cannot intervene and substitute any other interpretation for the contractual intention of the parties. The court has to give effect to it”. Therefore, the effect of exhibit “A” was that there was no arbitration clause in it, which was supposed to bind the parties to it. 16 | P a ge Even assuming, without admitting that, there was Arbitration clause in the said contract Agreement, the law is that the Defendant after entering appearance to have filed motion to stay proceeding and refer the matter to arbitration. From the above analysis of the evidence on record and the law, I do therefore resolve issue (b) in favour of the plaintiff. Now, on issue ‘c’, that is; “whether or not the plaintiff went through the administrative procedure required by governmental construction before payments could be effected”. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the plaintiff before issuing the writ against the government did comply with section 10(1) of the state proceedings Act of 1998, Act, 555. Although Defendant in its statement of Defence alleged that the plaintiff did not comply with section 10 (1) of the state proceedings Act, Act 555, before issuing the said writ of summons against the Government of Ghana. However, this statement is not borne by the evidence on record indeed plaintiff prior to the issue of this writ wrote a letter of Notice to commence legal action against the state pursuant to section 10 (1) of Act 555, see exhibit ‘A’ a copy of the said letter which was tendered and admitted in evidence without any objection. And finally it was also clear that the plaintiff went through the administrative procedure required by Governmental construction contracts before payment could be affected, indeed evidence on record confirms that the plaintiff went through the said administrative procedure required by Governmental construction contracts for the payment to be made to him. According to the plaintiff, he went through the said bureaucratic procedures. Indeed, exhibits ‘A3’ ‘A4’ ‘A5’ and ‘A6’ corroborates the plaintiff assertion that, he went through such an administrative procedure required by governmental construction contracts. 17 | P a ge Indeed, this plaintiff ‘s assertion was confirmed by Mr. James Oppong who gave evidence on behalf of the Defendant. In an answer to question asked in cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiff, answered as follows; Q. Mr. Oppong would you agree with me that there is process, the plaintiff goes through when an amount in respect of the contract given to the plaintiff becomes due for payment. A. That is so. Q. Plaintiff has raised interim certificate is that not so. A. Yes, my lord. Q. The interim payment certificates are then forwarded to Roads Fund Secretariat for payment. A. Yes, my lord that is the process. Q. Take a look at your documents, that is statement of Bill from Roads Fund Secretariat. BY COURT – Let the document tendered through the witness be admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit ‘1’. Q. Is this a statement of bill from the Roads Fund Secretariat in respect of the plaintiff. A. Yes, my lord. BY COURT - Let interim payment certificate that the counsel for the plaintiff tendering it through the Defendant witness be admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit ‘2’. Q. You would agree with me that exhibit ‘2’ is one of the interim payment certificate raised by the plaintiff 18 | P a ge A. Yes, my lord it is true. Indeed, it is a trite law “That when the evidence of a party is corroborated by the evidence of his opponent. The court ought to accept the evidence”. – See the case of Yakubu Vrs. Yakubu (2013) J 55 GMJ 97 and Tonado Enterprise & Others Vrs. Chou SenLin (2007 -2008) SC GLR 135. Consequently, I resolve issue (c) in favour of the plaintiff. It must be noted that the issues as to cost and interest rate were not part of the issues set down for trial in this matter. Although Defendant arguing on the issue of interest in this matter stated that plaintiff is not entitled to any interest at all because the calculation of the interest commences 90 days after the interim payment certificate has been raised and not from the day the interim payment certificate was raised. However, it must be borne in mind that any exertion of interest and rate of interest in any civil matter is determined by rule 1 of C. I52. In the case of Kama Health Service Ghana Limited Vrs. Unilever Ghana Limited Civil Appeal No J4/24/2013 in which judgement was given on 19th July, 2013 it was held that; “The relevant provisions as contained in Rule 1 of C.I. 52, namely Court (Award of interest and post judgement interest) Rules which provides as follows;” “If the court in a Civil action or matter decides to make an order for the payment of interest on the sum of money due to a party in the action, the interest shall be calculated (a) at the bank rate prevailing at the time the order is made and (b) simple interest, but where an enactment, instrument or agreement between the parties specifies a rate of interest which is to be calculated in a particular manner, the court shall award that rate of interest calculated in that manner”. 19 | P a ge In our instance, I have critically examined exhibit ‘A’ the contract Agreement between the parties in fact it does not talk about interest to be exacted neither does it talk about the rate to be exacted. I must say that counsel for the Defendant has argued that, calculation of interest commences 90 days after interim payment certificate has been raised. However, it must be stated that the said 90 days have since long elapsed and also, it does not talk about the rate of interest, hence I am not persuaded by the argument, interest should be awarded in this case. On the issue of cost Defendant is of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to a 10% cost of the sum it is seeking to recover as the cost the plaintiff has incurred in instituting this action will not amount to that. Also the plaintiff did not provide any prove or basis for the 10% cost he is asking the court to grant. Whereas plaintiff also argues that, plaintiff deserves the cost of 10% in respect of total sum being claim by the plaintiff, because the Defendant, the Government of Ghana has put plaintiff through unnecessary and avoidable expenses counsel for the plaintiff refers the court to order 74 of C.I. 47, which guides the court in awarding cost. Finally, he submitted that the cost of 10% being requested for, by the plaintiff which includes legal fees are within the scales of fess approved by Ghana Bar Association. And has attached a copy of Ghana Bar Association scale of fees to his address. First of all, the underlying principles of costs in civil trial is said that costs follow the event cost is also at the discretion of the judge however, cost must have reasonable bases. Cost must also relate to effort and expense and time. It therefore follows that cost must be assessed. It is also the crowning event in any civil trial………” See the case of Amalgamated Bank Vrs. Fraga Oil Ghana Limited & Ors. (2012) 48 GMJ 149. In fact, order 74 of C.I. 47 rule 2 sub rule 3 states thus; 20 | P a ge Without prejudice to the powers and discretion of the court, an award of costs shall ordinarily be designed to (a) Compensate for expenses reasonably incurred and court fees paid by the party in whose favour the award is made. (b) Provide reasonable remuneration for the lawyer of the party in respect of work done by the lawyer. (c) Therefore, in assessing the amount of costs to be awarded to any party, the court may have regards to; (1) The amount of expenses including travel expenses reasonably incurred by that party or that party lawyer or both in relation to the proceedings. (2) The amount of court fees paid by a party or party’s lawyer in relation to the proceedings. (3) The length and complexity of the proceedings. (4) The conduct of parties and their lawyer during the proceedings. (5) Any previous order as to costs made in proceedings See the case of Agyabeng Vrs. S.S.B. (GH) Limited (2011) 30 GMJ 40 @ 54 per Abban J.A. (as he then was) Therefore, in granting cost in this case I would be guided by the principles quoted supra. Finally, on the preponderance of probabilities of evidence, I hold that the plaintiff has been able to prove or make sufficient case to merit judgement in its favour. Therefore, judgement is entered in favour of the plaintiff on all its reliefs endorsed on its Amended writ of summons dated 4th July 13, 2024, 2023. Plaintiff’s costs assessed at Ghc118,802.00 in assessing this cost for the plaintiff I took into consideration the following guidelines; 21 | P a ge (1) The amount of expenses including travel expenses reasonably incurred by the plaintiff and its lawyer in relation to this proceeding. (2) The amount of court fees paid by the plaintiff or his lawyer in relation to this proceeding. (3) The length and complexity of the proceedings. (4) To provide for reasonable remuneration for the plaintiff’s lawyer in respect of the work done in relation to this proceeding. And I must say that although I am not bound by scale of fess of the Ghana Bar Association, nevertheless it aided me as a guide in assessing the said cost in favour of the plaintiff. …………………………………. JUSTICE HARRY ACHEAMPONG-OPOKU (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) Cay/… 22 | P a ge