KESSIE vs. NAMIH AND OTHERS

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...