KWASHIE GBO vs. KWABENA ANTIE & 1OR.

The respondent/plaintiff was the original owner of House No. 270/9, Accra New Town. The property had earlier been sold by public auction at the instance of the Accra City Council in August 1987 and purchased by one Odartey Lamptey (PW2). Thereafter, a dispute arose as to who redeemed or purchased the property from PW2. The respondent contended that he borrowed money from the 1st appellant’s father to redeem the property for himself, with the understanding that the lender would collect rents to liquidate the loan, thereby creating a pledge. The appellants, however, maintained that the transaction was an outright sale to the 2nd appellant, with the respondent merely acting as conduit. The respondent sued to recover possession and for an account of rents collected. The appellants relied, among other things, on a document marked Exhibit R2 said to evidence the sale. This factual background appears in the opening narrative of the judgment, particularly where the court states that 'the puzzle which our courts have been trying to unravel... is; who actually bought this property?' and sets out the competing versions of pledge versus outright sale.

WOOD (MRS), J.S.C. - The Plaintiff/ Respondent was the original owner of the subject matter of this appeal; House No. 270/9, Accra New Town. Unfortunately, it was sold by public auction at the instance of the Accra City Council in August 1987 and bought by one Odartey Lamptey (PW2). But thereafter, he sold the property, (so he thought), to the Respondent after he had been paid an amount of C1800 representing the cost of the auction price and other incidental expenses he alleged he had incurred. His story is that he was moved by the tearful pleas of the Respondent, the original owner and his family to relinquish his interest in the property. The repayment to him was not effected by the Respondent alone, but with the full participation of the Appellants and their witness, DW2.The puzzle which our courts have been trying to unravel for the past nineteen years is; who actually bought this property? Was it the Respondent, or the 2nd Appellant for the simple reason that, oddly, both partie...