[1980]DLHC1590 • April 25, 1980 • High Court

KESSIE vs. NAMIH AND OTHERS

The plaintiff, Cobina Kessie (spelt in parts of the record as 'Cobina with a C Kessie'), claimed title to plot No. O.T.B. 145 and alleged that the defendants had fraudulently substituted the original lease and related title documents so as to portray him as an illiterate assignor who had transferred the whole of his interest in the property to M. D. Namih in 1929. He contended that the assignment and subsequent dealings were fraudulent. The documentary record from the Lands Department, however, showed a chain of dealings beginning with a 1910 lease to Kwasi Amoako, a transfer in 1917 to 'Kobina with a K Kessie', renewal correspondence between 1926 and 1928 consistently executed by mark as an illiterate, and a 1929 letter and deed of assignment transferring the property to Moses D. Namih for £390. The court found that the plaintiff’s own evidence showed he was a literate schoolboy in 1917 and later a teacher, making it improbable that he was the same person as the illiterate lessee/assignor in the official records. The codefendant later purchased the property in 1974 after conducting an official search and relying on the Lands Department abstract of title. [Portions relied on: paragraphs beginning 'Now in exhibit C...', 'The Records Officer of the Lands Department was called...', 'On 11 April 1929...', and 'In or around 1974, the codefendant heard...']

read more

JUDGMENT OF ROGER KORSAH J. [His lordship stated the facts (as summarised in the headnote) and continued.] The law, as I understand it, is that if M. D. Namih perpetrated a fraud on Cobina (with a C) Kessie, proceedings to avoid the transaction may be taken at any time while the influence still operated on the mind of Cobina (with a C) Kessie. But after the influence has ceased to persist, that is, after Cobina (with a C) Kessie in 1949 had demanded, obtained and read exhibits A and B in which appeared the recitals that he had assigned the whole of his interest to M. D. Namih, he was enjoined by the law to commence proceedings within a reasonable time: see Bullock v. Lloyds Bank Ltd. [1955] Ch. 317; otherwise he must be taken to abide by the transaction and confirm it: see Allcard v. Skinner (1887) 36 Ch.D. 145, C.A. In my view, 27 years is too long a time to wait before commencing proceedings to vitiate the transaction between him and Namih on the grounds of fraud, if there was ever...