Frustration in Ghana case law.

The doctrine of frustration is one of the simplest concepts in the law of contract. But like any simple concept, its application is not as simple as it is understood. In Ghana the doctrine involves a mixture of common law rules and statute (ie the Contracts Act, 1960 (Act 25)).

BARCLAYS BANK(GHANA)LTD v SAKARI [1997-98] 1 GLR 746 [1997] SLR (SC) 2 · Supreme Court · 1997 · ACQUAH JSC

Furthermore for a defence of frustration to lie, it must be expressly pleaded and with particularity. As was said by Edmund Davies L.J. in Mount v. Oldham Corporation [1973] 1 All E.R. 26 at pp. 29-30, C.A.: “In my view, on the exiguous evidence presented, no proper foundation was laid for a finding that frustration of the contract had been established by the defendants, on whom lay the burden.”

AFRIFA v CLASS-PETER [1975] 1 GLR 359 [1975] SLR (CA) 9 · Court of Appeal · 1975 · FRANCOIS JA

The argument of frustration lies very ill in the mouth of the appellant. If there was frustration it was self-induced and cannot avail the defendant. See Maritime National Fish, Ltd. v. Ocean Trawlers Ltd. [1935] A.C. 524 at p. 530, P.C. where it was held that “the essence of `frustration’ is that it should not be due to the act or election of the party.”

AFRIFA v CLASS-PETER [1975] 1 GLR 359 [1975] SLR (CA) 9 · Court of Appeal · 1975 · FRANCOIS JA

The doctrine of frustration of contracts will operate to discharge performance of such contracts “if after its formation events occur making its performance impossible, illegal or radically different from that which was contemplated at the time it was entered into.

BARCLAYS BANK(GHANA)LTD v SAKARI [1997-98] 1 GLR 746 [1997] SLR (SC) 2 · Supreme Court · 1997 · ACQUAH JSC