The Attorney General (AG) has sued the Executive Chairman of the JOSPONG Group of Companies, Dr. Joseph Siaw Agyepong, and one of his companies, JA Plant Pool, in an attempt to recover $2 million as overpayment under a District Road Improvement Program (DRIP) contract.
Per the action, the AG is demanding the sum of $2 million, being money that had been paid and received by the Defendants for the use and benefit of the Plaintiff.
The action, filed on May 26, 2026, at the High Court, describes JA Plant Pool (1st Defendant) as a limited liability company incorporated and existing under the laws of the Republic of Ghana and engaged in the business of supplying earth-moving and heavy-duty equipment.
Dr. Siaw (2nd Defendant) is described as the Executive Chairman of the JOSPONG Group of Companies, of which the 1st Defendant forms part, and acted as the 1st Defendant’s lawful representative in the contract that is the subject matter of this suit.
The AG is also claiming interest on the sum of Two Million United States Dollars (US$2,000,000.00) at the prevailing commercial rate, from the date the said sum was received by the 1st Defendant until the date of final payment.
AG’s Statement of claim
It is the case of the AG that the District Road Improvement Programme (DRIP) was a Government of Ghana initiative aimed at improving and maintaining road infrastructure at the local level by supplying Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies with earth-moving equipment to rehabilitate and maintain road networks in their respective localities.
It explains that the then Chief of Staff, Hon. Akosua Frema Osei-Opare, and the then Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF), Hon. Irene Naa Torshie Addo, invited the 2nd Defendant, in his capacity as the Executive Chairman of the 1st Defendant, to the Office of the President to discuss the DRIP project.
The AG states that the meeting concluded with the 2nd Defendant agreeing to the proposed terms and conditions of the contract.
The Plaintiff (AG) avers that the Office of the President decided to procure the equipment under a single source procurement method and obtained the approval of the Public Procurement Authority for that method on January 10, 2024.
Contract
The AG states that on February 12, 2024, the Office of the President, the DACF, and the 1st Defendant entered into an Equipment Procurement Contract for the supply of two thousand four hundred and twenty (2,420) units of earth-moving equipment for the DRIP project.
It says the 2nd Defendant executed the Contract on behalf of the 1st Defendant in his capacity as the Executive Chairman of the 1st Defendant.
The AG further states that Section 3.1.1 of the Contract stipulates the contract sum payable to the 1st Defendant as One Hundred and Seventy-Eight Million, Seven Hundred and Four Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty-Nine United States Dollars, Fifty Cents (USD 178,704,739.50), exclusive of Value Added Tax and all duties, taxes, and levies upon importation.
Schedule 1 of the Contract, titled “Equipment Specification,” sets out the nine (9) categories of equipment to be supplied by the 1st Defendant, the unit cost of each item, the quantity of each item, and the total cost for each line item.
The AG states that, although the total row at the bottom of Schedule 1 of the Contract states the sum of the Total Cost column as USD 178,704,739.50, the actual correct figure, when the correct math is done in respect of those same figures contained in Schedule 1, is One Hundred and Seventy-Six Million, Seven Hundred and Four Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty-Nine United States Dollars, Fifty Cents (USD 176,704,739.50). The arithmetic is set out below:
The Plaintiff avers that the TOTAL row at the bottom of Schedule 1 of the Contract is accordingly overstated by Two Million United States Dollars (USD 2,000,000.00) above the arithmetical sum of the nine (9) line items it purports to total.
The Plaintiff avers that the contract sum of USD 178,704,739.50 stated in Section 3.1.1 of the Contract corresponds with the overstated TOTAL row in Schedule 1, and not with the arithmetical sum of the nine (9) line items in Schedule 1.
The Plaintiff avers that Schedule 2 of the Contract, titled “Payment Schedule,” provides for an initial payment of USD 26,805,710.93 and nine (9) further monthly payments calculated against the contract sum of USD 178,704,739.50 stated in Section 3.1.1, with the result that the entirety of the contract sum payable to the 1st Defendant under the Contract was anchored on the overstated figure of USD 178,704,739.50.
Below are excerpts of the AG’s statement of Case
The Plaintiff avers that the difference of USD 2,000,000.00 between the overstated TOTAL in Schedule 1 (and the contract sum in Section 3.1.1 of the Contract) on the one hand, and the arithmetical sum of the nine (9) line items in Schedule 1 on the other hand, is not referable to any item of equipment specified in Schedule 1, any unit cost specified in Schedule 1, any quantity specified in Schedule 1, any service, warranty, training, mobilization, fee, or other consideration whatsoever provided for under the Contract.
The said sum of USD 2,000,000.00 has no basis whatsoever within the four corners of the Contract.
The Plaintiff avers that, pursuant to the Contract, the Government of Ghana, through the Ministry of Finance, made an initial mobilization payment of fifteen percent (15%) of the contract sum to the 1st Defendant and subsequently paid the remaining eighty-five percent (85%) of the contract sum to the 1st Defendant through OmniBSIC Bank, on the basis of the inflated contract sum of USD 178,704,739.50.
The Plaintiff avers that, by reason of the foregoing paragraphs, the sum of Two Million United States Dollars (USD 2,000,000.00) paid by the State to the 1st Defendant exceeds the total of the unit costs multiplied by the quantities of the equipment specified in Schedule 1 of the Contract and was paid without any corresponding equipment, service, or other consideration moving from the 1st Defendant or the 2nd Defendant to the State.
The Plaintiff avers that the 2nd Defendant, as the person who executed the Contract on behalf of the 1st Defendant, knew or ought reasonably to have known of the discrepancy between the TOTAL row in Schedule 1 of the Contract and the arithmetical sum of the line items in Schedule 1, and knew or ought reasonably to have known that the 1st Defendant was not entitled to receive any sum in excess of the arithmetical sum of the line items in Schedule 1.
The Plaintiff avers that the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant nonetheless accepted, retained, and continue to retain the said sum of USD 2,000,000.00, which sum was paid to the 1st Defendant by the State for no consideration whatsoever.
The Plaintiff avers that there has been a total failure of consideration in respect of the sum of USD 2,000,000.00, the said sum having been paid by the State without the 1st Defendant or the 2nd Defendant supplying any equipment, service, or other consideration referable to it.
The Plaintiff avers that the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant have been unjustly enriched at the expense of the State by the said sum of USD 2,000,000.00, and that it would be unjust, inequitable, and contrary to law to permit the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant to retain the said sum.
The Plaintiff avers that the State is entitled to have the said sum of USD 2,000,000.00 refunded by the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant, jointly and severally, the 2nd Defendant being personally liable as the person who controlled and directed the affairs of the 1st Defendant in respect of the Contract and who procured the receipt and retention of the said sum by the 1st Defendant.
The Plaintiff avers that the State has demanded the refund of the said sum from the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant, but the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant have failed and/or refused to refund the said sum.
The Plaintiff avers that unless ordered by this Honourable Court, the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant will not refund to the State the sum of USD 2,000,000.00 paid to the 1st Defendant for no work done and for no consideration.
As a result of the above, the Plaintiff claims against the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant, jointly and severally, as follows:
a. The sum of Two Million United States Dollars (US$2,000,000.00) being money had and received by the Defendants for the use and benefit of the Plaintiff;
b. Interest on the sum of Two Million United States Dollars (US$2,000,000.00) at the prevailing commercial rate, from the date the said sum was received by the 1st Defendant until the date of final payment.
Source:www.kumasimail.com
